-^^>i- 


**«p 


r.^. 


.>  -.T 


J 


copy  I 


L^S^Si 


i9 


1 


^ 


r,*  ^ 


•c  «yfii» 'vl 


'■^Z 


^■«^^ 


p 


7^ 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Presented  by  Mr   Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnciv  Coll.  071  Baptism^  No. 


C' 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieoiogicai  Seminary  Library 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/sermonsonmodesubOOmorr 


S  E  R  M  0  ^ J 


ON    THE 


MODE  AND  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM 


SNTENDED    TOR 


THE  USE  OF  INDIVIDUALS,  FAMILIES  AND 
SOCIAL  MEETINGS, 


BY  HEJ^RIT  MORRIS, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  REFORMED  DUTCH  CHURCH, 
OF  UNION- VILLAGE,  N.  Y, 


Unioii-VillagejW.  Y, 

TRINTED    BY    JOHN    W.    CURTIS  = 

1844= 


Copy  Right  Secured, 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  following  discourses  were  in  substance  preached  to  the  au- 
thor's own  Congregation  in  defence  of  the  truth,  and  they  are  pub- 
lished by  the  request  of  his  hearers.  They  have  been  prepared  for 
the  press  in  the  midst  of  other  labours,  and  consequently  are  not  as 
accurate  in  language  and  finished  in  other  respects  as  he  could  wish. 
Perhaps,  however,  this  is  a  matter  of  little  importance  as  they  may 
have  only  a  local  value,  and  be  ephemeral  in  their  existence. 

The  writers  on  baptism  to  whom  the  author  is  indebted  for  por- 
tions of  language  occasionally,  and  for  much  of  the  matter  contained 
in  this  volume,  are  Miller,  Wood,  Dwight,  Arnold,  E.Hall,  Ward- 
law,  Peter  Edwards,  Williams,  Coleman,  and  Taylor,  Psedo  bap- 
tists; Gill,  Robinson,  and  Carson,  Immersionalists. 

In  writing  the  following  sheets,  the  introduction  of  banter  and 
ridicule,  irrelevant  matter,  and  every  thing  calculated  to  call  forth 
malevolent  passions,  has  been  studiously  avoided.  In  the  discus- 
sion of  the  questions  held  in  dispute,  the  reader's  attention  has  been 
constantly  directed  to  the  very  doctrine  held  by  the  Immersionalists, 
viz  :  that  baptism  is  immersion,  not  by  covering  the  candidate  en- 
tirely with  water  in  any  way,  but  solely  by  dipping  or  plunging 
him  in  and  under  water.  Robert  Hall  says,  Immersionalists  "  con- 
tend for  the  exclusive  validity  of  immersion  in  distinction  from 
the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  water."  Carson  says,  "  the  meaning 
of  the  word  {baptize)  is  always  the  same,  and  it  always  signifies  to 
dip.  It  never  has  any  other  meaning,  never  expressing  anything 
but  mode."  (p.  79.)  Robinson  says,  ''that  the  word  (baptism)  is 
confessedly  Greek,  and  that  native  Greeks  who  must  understand 
their  own  language  better  than  foreigners,  have  always  understood 
it  to  signify  dipping.^''  (History  of  Baptism,  p.  16.)  Surrounding 
a  man  therefore  with  water  when  it  does  not  touch  him,  covering 
him  all  over  with  water  by  perfusion,  aspersion,  pouring  or  any 
other  njode  except  by  dipping  or  plunging  into  it,  is  not  valid  bap- 
tism. It  makes  no  difference  how  great  a  quantity  is  sprinkled  up- 
on him,  or  poured  over  him,  he  is  not  baptized  without  being  dip- 
ped, and  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  how  small  a  quantity  is 
used,  he  is  baptized  if  he  is  plunged  all  over  in  it.     The  author 


has  eiideavored  to  keep  this  precise  idea  in  view  in  his  discussion 
of  the  mode  oi' baptism. 

He  has  intended  to  give  no  offence  by  his  use  of  the  term  Immer- 
sioNALiSTS.  He  questions  the  propriety  of  yielding  to  those  who 
"  contend  for  the  exclusive  validity  of  immersion,"  the  name  of 
Baptists,  since  all  who  "  doopemet  water,"  baptize  ivithivater^ 
like  "  Joannes  de  Dooper,"  *  John  the  baptist,  are  Baptists,  and 
Bible  Baptists  in  a  sense  more  strictly  true  than  those  who  main- 
tain that  dipping  is  essential  to  baptism.  He  contends  that  those 
who  give  the  word  Baptizo  its  legitimate  and  full  signification,  are 
Baptists,  and  that  those  who  restrict  its  meaning  to  immersion,  are 
Immersionalists. 

If  the  author  has  expressed  his  views  with  confidence  and  bold- 
ness, he  hopes  his  readers  will  not  impute  it  to  obstinacy  of  temper, 
or  unwillingness  to  listen  and  yield  to  calm  and  conclusive  reason- 
ing. This  he  feels  himself  bound  to  do,  but  to  yield  his  views 
without  evidence,  "  hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est,"  this  is  impossible, 
"If  any  man,  therefore,  (to  use  the  language  of  Bunyan,)  shall 
count  my  papers  worth  the  scribbling  against,  let  him  de?\  with 
mine  arguments,  and  things  immediately  depending  upon  them, 
and  not  conclude  he  hath  confuted  a  book,  when  he  hath  only  quar- 
elled  with  words.  1  have  done  when  I  have  told  you,  that  I  strive 
not  for  mastery,  nor  to  show  myself  singular ;  but,  if  it  might  be, 
for  union  and  communion  among  the  godly  :  And  count  me  not  an 
enemy  because  I  tell  you  the  truth." 

*  Robinson,  p.  117,  remarks  John  een  dooper,  means  John  the  Dipper.  The 
Dutch  is  De  Dooper,  not  een,  &c.  Theodore  Hack,  a  Dutch  scholar  and  transla- 
tor of  the  Dutch  IBible,  with  Annotations  into  the  English  language,  has  rendered 
de  dooper,  the  Baptist.  "  Ende  in  die  dagen  quam  Joannes  de  dooper  prediken- 
de,  &c.  i.  e.  "And  in  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist  preaching,"  &-c.  Math, 
iii,  1. 

Baptizo  is  rendered  in  Dutch  Geduopl,  Doope,  and  Dooper,  which  Hack  trana 
lates  Baptize.     See  Mat.  iii,  6,  11,  13,  14,  16. 

Baptisma,  chop,  which  he  translates  baptism.     Math,  iii,  7.  Mark,  i.  4,  10, 3S. 

Baptismos.  Wascliinge,  Wascldngen,  Mark  vii,  4,  8.  Heb.  ix,  10,  which  he 
translates  ifffls/iec?,  washing,  washings.     Der  Dooper,  6,  2,  Baptisms. 

Bapto,     Geverwet,  Rev.  xix,  13,  which  he  translates  Dv.d.^ 


1 


-^    V'      vt        '   ■ 

^    ,^  ^.  o. 


8EMMON 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 
"  IsAiH  LII,  15.     So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations. 

These  words  belong  to  an  important  prophecy  respecting^  the  Messiah,  which 
commences  at  the  l3th  verse,  and  is  continued  to  the  close  of  the  next  chapter. 
By  the  mass  of  approved  commentators  Jewish  and  Christian,  this  passage  has 
been  regarded  as  having  an  indisputable  reference  to  Christ.  The  only  doubt  in 
respect  to  it  which  any  of  them  have  expressed,  is  as  to  its  interpretation.  Some 
have  understood  it  as  having  reference  to  the  blood  of  purifying  which  would  be 
sprinkled  on  the  nations  when  the  Redeemer  should  make  expiation  for  sin. 
Others  suppose  it  should  be  explained  of  the  word  or  doctrine  of  Christ,  which 
is  sometimes  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  falling  upon  the  people  as  rain,  or 
as  being  gently  distilled  on  them  as  the  dew.  And  others  have  interpreted  it  as 
applicable  to  the  act  of  sprinkling  water  in  the  administration  of  baptism. 

It  is  evident  that  the  word  sprinkle  in  the  original,  is  used  to  denote  sprinkling 
with  blood  or  water.  The  passage,  therefore,  may  be  of  large  import,  having 
reference  to  the  whole  work  of  the  Messiah  as  a  purifier,  not  only  by  blood,  but 
by  the  sprinkling  of  water  in  baptism,  as  emblematical  of  the  cleansing  and  sanc- 
tifying influence  of  the  spirit.*  Thus  explained,  it  inculcates  the  doctrine  that 
under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  Christ  shall  cleanse  or  purify  his  people 
by  sprinkling  upon  them  the  water  of  baptism.  The  sentiment  which  may  be 
deduced  from  this  passage  then,  is,  that  the  application  of  water  to  the  subject, 
in  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and  Ploly  Ghost,  by  sprinkling,  is  valid  baptism. 

We  shall  endeavor  in  this  Discourse  to  prove  this  sentiment. 

The  Immersionalists  contend  with  one  voice,  "that  the  idea  of  immersion  en- 
ters into  the  very  nature  of  baptism  ;  that  the  terms  baptism  and  immersion  are 
equivalent  and  interchangeable  :  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  (baptize)  is  al- 
ways the  same,  and  always  signifying  to  dip,  and  that  immersion  is  so  essential  to 
the  ordinance,  that  there  can  be  no  valid  baptism  without  it."  This  we  deny  and 
reject.  We  contend  that  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  is  valid  baptism,  tor  the  follow- 
ing reasons. 

1.  Because  it  is  a  mode  of  baptism  which  is  "  calculated  for  universal  prac- 
tice." Immersion  is  not  adapted  to  general  use.  It  is  always  inconvenient, 
particularly  when  administered  in  cold  weather,  in  a  stream  of  water.  The  ef- 
fect of  it  under  such  circumstances,  is,  to  produce  coldness,  shivering,  and  unea- 

■•■  "  With  his  bloodshed,  and  with  an  sending  forth  of  the  gifts  and  graces  of 
his  spirit  bv  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  by  the  use  of  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ments."— Dutch  Bible  loilh  Annotations,  publtshecl  hi/  authority,  1637. 


fiiness  both  of  body  and  mind,  which  is  in  evevy  respect  unfavorable  to  devotion. 
It  is,  moreover,  unsuitable  to  persons  in  feeble  and  delicate  health,  *  ill  adapted 
to  northern  climatee,  and  for  many  months,  in  high  latitudes,  is  wholly  impracti- 
cable, unless  ice  and  snow  is  melted,  and  the  water  is  artificially  warmed.  In 
such  rigorous  climates  as  Greenland,  Iceland,  Lapland,  Northern  Russia,  and 
Siberia,  immersion  in  cold  water,  in  the  winter,  is  out  of  the  question.  Henco 
it  is  the  custom  of  the  Greek  Church  in  Russia,  "to  warm  in  winter  the  baplia- 
mai  water." 

Witsius  quotes  Christophorus  Angelu?,  who  says,  "  The  Greeks  keep  in  their 
churches  a  kind  of  large  vessels  called  Baptisteries  ;  that  is,  vessels  so  large  as 
are  sufficient  to  admit  the  infant  to  be  plunged  all  over  therein.  When,  there- 
fore, any  child  is  to  be  dipped  in  this  fount,  the  relations  of  the  infant  first  of  all 
loarm  the  water  with  some  odoriferous  herbs."  Baptizing  in  tepid  water  is  ac- 
tually essential  to  the  administration  of  the  rite  by  immersion  in  this  climate, 
though  it  is  not  practiced.  Dr.  Dwight  observes,  "that  the  health  and  lives  of 
.those  who  are  baptized  by  immersion,  are  often  injured  and  destroyed,  and  that 
he  makes  this  statement  not  on  the  ground  of  opinions  but  facts."  If  mdividuala 
do  not  Bometim«^s  receive  serious  detriment,  it  must  be  because  they  are  preserv- 
ed almost  by  a  miracle.  For  in  extreme  cold  weather  and  in  the  depth  of  win- 
ter, it  is  necessary  to  make  a  large  opening  through  ice  a  foot  thick,  and  to  keep 
persons  employed  with  rahes  or  poles  to  clear  the  water  of  the  anchor  ice  which 
constantly  collects,  and  even  then  it  is  with  much  difficulty,  and  no  small  amount 
of  suffering  to  the  administrator  and  the  candidate,  that  the  rite  is  performed.  In 
a  country  some  six  or  seven  hundred  miles  nearer  the  North  Pole,  and  posses- 
sing a  severer  climate,  it  is  obvious  that  immersion  in  cold  water,  becomes  if  not 
impracticable,  in  all  cases  unsafe  even  for  the  healthy.  Hence,  Robinson  in  his 
history  of  baptism,  admits  that  it  is  necessary  to  use  warm  water  in  high  north- 
ern latitudes,  and  in  proof  of  it  has  related  the  following  facts. 

"  In  the  twelfth  century,  a  Swedish  Catholic  bishop,  named  Otho,  travelled  in= 
to  the  country  of  the  Ulmegurians,  now  Pomeramia,  and  taught  a  great  number 
of  the  natives,  whom  he  caused  his  assistants  to  baptize  in  bathing  tubs  let  into 
the  ground,  and  surrounded  with  curtains  ;  and,  as  the  weather  was  excessive 
cold,  he  ordered  large  fires  to  be  made,  it  should  seem,  for  the  purpose  of  dissolv- 
ing ice  to  supply  the  tubs  with  water. 

"At  the  close  of  the  10th  century,  when  Christianity,  such  as  it  was,  was  in- 
troduced among  the  Icelanders,  and  when  Thorgeir  had  proposed  tliat  they 
should  be  baptized,  they  refused  to  comply  except  on  condition  they  should  be 
baptized  in  hot  baths,  for  they  unanimously  declared,  '  they  would  not  be  baptized 
i  fcaZ/ ra^n,  in  cold  water.'  They  were  accordingly,  by  the  advice  of  Snoro,  a 
chief  and  priest,  baptized  in  the  hot  baths  or  springs  aboimding  in  that  Island."  f 

*  While  these  sheets  are  being  revised  (Oct.  14,  1843.)  the  bell  is  tolling  the 
funeral  knell  of  a  female  whose  death,  it  is  commonly  reported,  was  occasioned 
by  disease  contracted  by  exposure  to  the  cold  while  witnessing  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism performed  by  immersion. 

f  See  History  of  Baptism  by  R.  Robertson,  p.  456. 


These  fecte,  which  are  furnished  by  an  ImmereiDnalist  writer,  shew  that  im- 
mersion is  not  adapted  to  every  climate,  and  is  totally  impracticable  at  certain 
eeasors  of  the  year,  in  cold  water.  Artificial  means,  such  as  warming  the  watery 
must  be  resorted  to  in  order  to  baptize  in  this  way. 

Now,  we  have  serious  doubts  whether  this  warming  of  water,  and  baptizingf  in 
water  warmed,  or  hot  baths,  is  actually  consistent  with  Christian  simplicity,  and 
is  required  to  serve  Him  acceptably  who  has  declared  that  his  yoke  is  easy,  and 
his  burden  is  light.  In  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  rite  equally  as  solemn,  significant 
and  sacred,  liberty  is  allowed.  We  are  not  required  by  the  Immersionalists  to 
conform  to  the  mode  adopted  by  Christ  and  his  disciples  when  they  first  celebra- 
ted the  Lord's  Supper.  They  reclined  on  "  couches  at  the  Sacramental  table, 
used  unleavened  bread,  and  pure  wine,  and  observed  it  in  the  night.  We  do  not 
imitate  them  in  either  of  these.  We  celebrate  it  at  mid-day,  and  take  the  bread 
and  wine  sitting.  We  are  governed  by'considerations  of  convenience,  comfort 
and  adaptedness  to  our  customs,  habits  and  manners.  We  believe  that  we  act 
in  this  agreeable  to  the  spirit  of  religion,  and  the  will  of  God.  Why  should  we 
not  act  on  the  same  principles  in  regard  to  Baptism  1  Why  should  we  lay  asida 
all  considerations  arising  from  climate,  health,  convenience,  and  the  customs  ofso- 
ciety  in  regard  to  baptism,  and  bind  ourselves  to  pursue  but  one  invariable  mode 
in  the  observance  of  this  ordinance  1  Why  may  wo  not  enjoy  liberty  in  this  as 
well  as  in  the  Lord's  Supper  1  Why  is  the  mode  of  more  importance  in  one  case 
than  in  the  other  ? 

We  do  not  see  why  reclining  at  the  Lord's  table  is  not  as  essential  to  a  prop= 
er  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  immersioii  is  to  Baptism,  admitting  that 
that  was  the  mode  of  baptism  practiced  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  1  And  if  tho 
Immersionalists  dispense  with  one,  consistency  would  seem  to  require  them  to 
dispense  with  the  other.  If  considerations  of  convenience,  propriety,  and  re= 
gard  for  the  customs  of  society,  are  sufficient  reasons  to  induce  them  to  vary  from 
the  mode  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
these  are  reasons  of  sufficient  weight  to  induce  them  to  change  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism by  immersion,  to  pouring  or  sprinkling.* 

*  Baptism  by  immersion  has  been  attended  with  drowning.  Robinson  relates 
the  drowning  of  a  boy  in  a  baptistry  at  Rome,  and  also  says,  "I  have  heard  that 
a  priesr,  in  immersing  a  child,  let  it  slip,  through  inattention,  into  the  water. 
The  child  was  drowned ;  but  the  holy  man  suffered  no  consternation.  Give  ms 
another,  said  he,  with  the  utmost  composure,  for  the  Lord  hath  taken  this  to  hira- 
gelf." — History  of  Baptism,  p.  p,  115,  445,  446. 

Robinson  admits,  (p.  p.  348,  879.)  that  dipping  infants  is  unnatural  and  barb= 
arous.  "Peace  be  with  the  remains  of  that  humane  Frenchman,  (he  says)  who 
first  freed  the  western  world  from  the  custom  of  baptizing  new  born  infants  by 
dipping,  a  custom  rendered  barbarous  by  the  reason  given  to  support  it."  Again 
"  The  absolute  necessity  of  dipping  in  order  to  valid  baptism,  and  the  indispensa^ 
ble  necessity  of  baptism  in  order  to  salvation,  were  two  doctrines  which  clashed, 
and  the  collision  kindled  up  a  sort  of  war  between  the  warm  bosoms  of  parents 
who  had  children,  and  the  cold  reasonings  of  Monks,  who  had  few  symyathies. 
The  doctrine  was  cruel,  and  the  feelings  of  humanity  revolted  against  it.  Powef 
asay  give  law  ;  but  it  is  more  than  power  can  do  to  make  unnatural  law  sit  easy 
on  the  minds  of  men,"  Is  not  dipping  infants  so  cruel  and  barbarous  in  itselfi 
that  infant  baptism  must  necessarily  he  given  up  if  immersion  is  practiced,  and  on 
the  other  hand,  if  infant  baptiim  is  retained*  inuBt  not  immersion  be  substituted 
by  sprinkling  or  pouring  ? 


8 

As  the  Chrisitian  religion  is  designed  to  be  universal,  baptism  iiuist  be  an  ordi- 
nance of  perpetual  and  universal  obligation.  Consequently,  a  mode  of  administer- 
ing it  only  can  be  obligatory  which  is  practicable  at  all  limes,  and  by  every  por- 
tion of  the  human  race.  Such  a  mode  is  aspersion  or  pouring.  It  is  suited  to 
every  country  and  climate  ;  it  is  safe  for  the  receiver  and  the  administrator ;  it 
may  be  performed  in  the  place  of  public  worship  where  the  ordinances  of  Chris- 
tianity should  be  administered,  and  it  is  in  all  respects  fitted  to  the  universal 
character  of  Christianity.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  as  our  blessed  Lord  in- 
tended that  all  nations  should  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  that 
those  who  dwell  in  the  frigid  zone  should  not  be  deprived  of  its  blessings  any 
more  than  those  who  dwell  in  the  torrid  ;  that  he  has  given  his  preferencejto  and 
rendered  essential  to  it,  that  particular  mode  of  baptism  v/hlch  is  calculated  for 
universal  practice. 

i2.  The  application  of  water  to  the  subject  by  aspersion  or  pouring,  is  valid 
baptism,  because  it  corresponds  with  spiritual  baptism,  of  which  it  is  emblemat- 
ical. 

By  spiritual  baptism,  we  mean  tliose  divine  operations  in  the  souls  of  believ- 
ers which  are  produced  by  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  which 
are  intended  when  the  pious  are  said  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  baptized^  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Water  baptism  represents  the  purifying,  or  cleansing  nature  of 
this  higher  baptism,  and,  of  course,  must  naturally  correspond  in  its  mode,  (if  it 
bears  any  resemblance  to  it)  with  the  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  this  baptism  is  always  represented  as  a  "  sending  down,  coming,  giving, 
falling,  shedding,  pouring,  sealing,"  &c.,  and  never  as  an  immersing,  plunging, 
or  svimersing.  "  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit.  Jesus  having  received  of  the  Fath- 
er the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear 
The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all,"  &c.  Now,  as  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
conferred  by  the  descending  of  the  divine  influence  on  its  subject,  so  water  bap- 
tism, which  is  its  symbol,  to  correspond  with  it,  must  be  administered  by  the  de- 
scending ot  the  baptismal  element  on  the  recipient. 

8.  The  application  of  water  to  the  subject,  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  is  valid 
baptism,  because  it  ie  sustained  by  the  meaning  of  the  words  which  are  used  to 
denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

The  Greek  words  are  PanTi^co,  (baptizo)  ■w'llh  its  derivatives /?a?rr«7;(a,  (tepfisma) 
and  Ha-nria^oi,  {baplismos)  Baptize  is  a  derivative  firm  /Sdirru,  (bapto)  and  as  all  de- 
rivatives retain,  in  a  measure,  the  signification  of  their  roots,  so  baptizo  may  be 
regarded  as  synonymous^  to  a  certain  extent,  at  least,  in  meaning  with  bapto. 
But  bapto  is  a  word  which  means  to  bathe,  to  wash,  to  wet  with  dew,  paint  or 
smear  the  face  with  colours,  to  pour,  to  dye,  tinge,  imbue  or  slain.  Mr.  Carson, 
an  immersionalist  writer  of  much  learning,  proves  that  it  means  to  dye  or  color 
in  any  manner,  i.  e,  by  pouring,  sprinkling  or  dipping. 

For  the  satisfaction  of  the  unlearned,  a  few  casea  of  the  different  significations 
of  this  word,  are  cited.  Dan.  v.  21.  Daniel  says  respecting  Nebuchadnezzar, 
they  fed  him  willi  gtfiss  like  o-xen,  and  his  body  was  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven 


In  the  Greek  it  is,  and  his  body  was  baptized  with  the  dew  of  heaven.  Dew 
descends  in  a  very  fine  sprinkling.  Nebuchadnazzar,  therefore,  was  baptized  by 
sprinkling,  and  the  word  (bapto)  consequently  means,  in  this  instance,  to  bap- 
tize by  sprinkling. 

Homer,  an  ancient  classic  writer,  uses  the  word  in  the  'sense  of  staining,  or 
discoloring.  Speaking  of  the  death  of  a  frog,  in  his  ludicrous  mock  heroic  poem 
of  the  battlo  of  the  mice  and  frog?,  he  save,  "  And  the  lake  was  baptized  with 
purple  blood."*  He  mean?,  of  course,  that  the  blood  of  the  frog  was  sprinkled 
upon  the  water,  and  it  was  thereby  discolored,  or  stained.  He  docs  not  intend  to 
Bay  that  the  lake  was  dipped,  or  immersed  in  the  blood  of  a  frog. 

Aristophanes  observes  that  Magnes,  an  old  comedian  of  Athens,  used  to 
shave  t!ie  face,  and  {"  Pan-oixevos  Parpa)(^cioci.)  "stain  it  icith  iaicny  colors."  Dr. 
Gale,  an  immersionalist,  interprets  this  passage  thus  ;  ''  He  speaks  of  the  home- 
ly entertainments  of  the  ancient  theatre,  where  the  actors  daubed  themselves 
with  the  lees  of  wine,  and  any  odd  colors,  before  Eschyltjs  reformed  it.  and  in- 
troduced the  use  of  masks  and  visors.  Aristophanes  expresses  this  by  (bapto- 
menos  ba-tracheiois ;)  not  that  he  supposes  they  dijiped  their  faces  into  the  color, 
but  rather  smeared  the  color  on  their  faces." 

Aristotle  says.  "  But  when  pressed  (  PaTrrst  Kdi  m/Bt^ec  rrjv  ^crpa.  )  it  tinges  the 
hand,  and  ^ives  it  a  florid  color,"  He  here  speaks  of  a  juicy  substance  pressed 
or  squeezed  in  the  hand.  Marcus  Antonius,  speaking  of  a  man  of  real  worth, 
says  :  "  He  is  one  {SiKatogwn Pcffai/nsvov  ctg  ISaSos)  ihoroughly  seasoned  or  imhued  with 
justice.  Again,  he  says,  "  Your  mind  will  be  such  as  the  things  you  most  often 
think  of;  for  the  soul  (baptelai)  is  imbued,  ov  tinctured,  by  the  thoughts."  Ao-ain, 
«  See  that  you  be  not  conformed  to  the  Csssars,  fme  baphes)  lest  you  be  stained 
or  inflected.''^ 

Judges,  V.  30,  "  To  Sisera  a  prey  of  divers  colours,  a  prey  oC  divers  colours  of 
needle  work,  a  prey  of  du'ers  coZors  of  needle  work  on  both  sides."  The  word 
colors  is  in  the  Greek  (  (iai-fara  bammata,)  a  derivative  from  bapto.  This  is  di- 
rectly against  the  sense  of  immersing,  dipping,  or  plunging.  Read  on  the  im- 
mersing plan,  and  it  would  be,  "To  Sisera  a  prey  o? immersings,  a  prey  of  im- 
mersings  of  needle  v/ork,  a  prey  of  immersings  of  needle  work  on  both  sides." 

In  the  Psalms  Ixviii,  23,  we  read,  "That  thy  foot  may  be  red,  or  tinged  with  the 
blood  of  thine  enemies,  and  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same." 

Lev.  xiv.  6.  "  As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and 
the  scarlet,  and  the  hysop,  "Kal^d^psi  aira  kuI  TodpviOeov  to  ^oiv."  and  shall  tinge  or 
stain  them,  and  the  living  bird,  with  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the 
running  water."  It  is  clear  that  these  things  could  not  be  immersed  in,  or  cov- 
ered entirely  over  with  the  blood  of  a  bird.  There  is  not  a  sufficient  quantity  of 
blood  in  two  or  three  birds,  to  immerse  a  single  bird,  by  dipping,  or  plunging  it 
all  over  in  it. 

*The  frog  is  represented  as  struck  with  a  panic  and  fallen  into  the  lake.  Then 
one  of  the  mice   gave  him    a    deadly    wound.      "  He  ceased  to  breathe, 

("  tl3anr^To   oj  a(uo!r(  Xtfivi?.")  and,  the  lake  was  tinged  with  blood.*' 


10 

Rev.  xix,  VS.  Ana  ne  was  clothed  with  a  vesture,;;<ar<oi'  fiepanidvov  ai/jaTi,  tinged 
or  stained  with  blood.  '*  Dutch,  "  kleet  dat  met  bloet  geverwet  was,"  that  is, 
•'  with  a  garment  dyed  with  blood:"  ("namely,  in  respect  of  his  sufferings  for  us, 
and  in  respect  of  the  blood  of  his  enemies  wherewith  this  garment  was  dyed  in 
this  slaughter.") 

Origen,  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  uses  the  word  (hajpto)  in 
the  sense  of  pouring.  Commenting  on  the  baptism  of  John,  he  says,  'How  would 
you  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would  ^baptiie  who  did  not  in  the 
time  of  Ahab  baptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which  was  to  be  washed  before  it 
was  to  be  burnt  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire^  But  he  ordered  the  priest  to 
do  that,  not  once  only,  but  he  says  do  it  the  second  time.  And  do  it  the  third 
time ;  and  they  did  it  the  third  time.  Therefore,  how  could  it  be  likely  that  this 
man,  who  did  not  then  baptize,  but  assigned  that  work  to  others,  would  himself 
baptize,  when  he  should  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Malachi,  again  appear 
hereupon  earth.'' 

Now,  in  I  Kings,  xviii.  3.3,  we  are  told  that  Elijah  ordered  water  to  be  poured 
on  the  wood  and  sacrifice,  but  not  to  dip  either  in  the^water.  Yet  Origen  tells 
us  that  pouring  water  on  the  wood  and^on  the  sacrifice,  was  baptizing  it.  Who 
can  resist  the  conviction,  when  he  reads  this  remarkable  passage,  that  Origen 
had  been  in  the  practice  of  administering  the  rite  of  baptism  by  pouring  ?  How 
otherwise  can  we  account  for  the  fact  that  he  regarded  pouring  wefter  on  any 
thing  and  baptizing  it  as  the  same  thing"?  And  if  this  was  his  opinion,  it  was  the 
current  belief  of  the  day  in  which  he  lived,  for  he  undoubtedly  spoke  in  accord- 
ance with  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  his  contemporaries. 

If  now  we  turn  to  baptizo,  and  trace  it  through  its  different  acceptations,  we 
shall  find  that  it  retains  the  signification  of  its  root,  bapto. 

1.  For  haptizo  means,  in  the  first  place,  to  tirige.,  bedew  and  sprinkle.  Tertul- 
lian,  one  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  uses  it  in  this  sense.  Remarking  on 
the  passage,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel."  1  Cor. 
1, 17,  he  says : 


"Cur  enim 
tinxit  Caiura,  et  Crispum,  et  Stephanse 
domum?  Quamquam  etsi  non  eum 
miserat  Christus  ^ad  9  tinguendum  ;  ta- 
men  aliis  Apostolis  pr^ceperat  tinguere. 
Verum  hsec  pro  conditione  tunc  tem- 
poris  ad  Corinthios  scripta  sunt,  quoniam 
schismata,  et  dissensiones  inter  illos 
movebantur,  dum  alins  Paulo  deputat, 
alius  Apollos  propterq  uod  pacificus  Ap- 
ostolus, ne  sibi  omnia  defendere  videre- 
tur,  non  ad  tinguendum  (ait)  se  missum, 
eed  ad  preedicandum  ;  nam  et  prius  est 
prsedicare,  postea  tinguere.'' 


"  Why  indeed  did  he  tinge  or  bedew 
Caius  and  Crispus  and  the  family  of  Ste- 
phanus]  For  although  Christ  had  not 
sent  him  to  tinge  or  bedew,  nevertheless, 
he^had  commanded  the  other  Apostles 
to  bedew. 

But  these  things  were  written  to  the 
Corinthians  as  most  suited  to  their  con- 
dition at  that  time,  because  schisms  and 
dissensions  were  excited  among  them, 
since  one  makes  account  of  Paul  and 
another  of  Apollos,  wherefore,  the  pa- 
cific Apostle,  lest  he  should  not  seem 
to  repel  all  things  from  himself,  says 
that  he  was  not  sent  to  tinge  but  to 
preach ;  for  it  is  first  in  order  to  preach, 
afterwards  to  bsdew  or  besprinkle." 


11 

The  word  tingo  used  here  as  synonymous  with  oaptizo,  means  to  dye,  stain,  wet  or 
moisten,  in  any  way  whatever,  by  pouring  sprinkling  or  immersing'.  Persius  ; 
Tincta  veneno,  infected  with  poison.  "  Tingat  olus  siccuni  muria,"  wet,  or  spar- 
ingly imbue,  his  garden  stuff  with  sauce,  or  any  liquid  to  give  it  a  relish;"  "Sepe 
oculos  memini  Tingebam  parvus  olivo  ;"  I  remember  that  when  a  body,  I  an- 
nointed  my  eyes  with  olive  oil." — Virgil.  "Musto  Tirade  cruna ;"  stain  your 
legs  with  neiv  wine,  i,  e.  in  treading  out  grapes.  "  Arctos  Oceani  metruente» 
sequore  tingi;"  the  bears  that  cautiously  shun  being  wetted  in,  or  touched  with  the 
water  of  the  ocean." — Ovid.  ^' Tingere  ora  lacritnis  f  to  tinge  or  bedew  the 
face  with  tears.  Calp.  "  Tingere  pascua  rore ;"  to  tinge  or  wet  the  pastures 
with  dew.     Cicero.  "  Tunica  sanguine  tincta  ;"  garments  stained  with  blood. 

There  is  a  passage  in  the  Apochryphal  book  Ecclesiasticus,  xxxiv,  30,  where 
baptizo  is  used  in  the  sense  of  sprinkling. 


avToVj  Ti  ilicpi  Xrjiiv  tu  Xovrp'Z  avroii. 


"  He  that  baptizeth  himself  after  the 
touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it 
again,  what  availeth  his  washing." 


When  a  Jew  touched  a  dead  body,  he  was  required  by  the  Mosaic  law  to  puri- 
fy himself  with  the  water  of  seperation.  But  the  water  of  seperation  he  sprink- 
led  upon  himself.  The  law  on  this  subject  is  in  Numb.  xix.  11,13.  "He  that 
toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man,  shall  be  unclean  seven  days.  He  shall  puri- 
fy himself  with  it,  (i.  e.  water  of  seperation,  v.  9:)  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the 
seventh  day  he  shall  be  clean  ;  but  if  he  purify  not  himself  the  third  day  then  the 
seventh  day  he  shall  not  be  clean." 

In  the  next  verse,  the  mode  of  this  purification  is  described.  "  Whosever 
toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  that  is  dead,  and  purifieth  not  himself,  defi- 
leth  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord,  and  that  soul  shall  be  cast  off  from  Israel,  because 
the  water  of  seperation  was  not  sprinkled  upon  him."  &c- 

The  writer  of  the  book  of  Ecclesiastius  was  a  Jew,  and  of  course  had  reference 
to  this  very  ordinance  respecting  the  purification  of  a  person  who  had  touched 
a  dead  body.  But  he  calls  the  administration  of  it  baptism  ;  using  the  very  word 
baptizo  to  denote  the  sprinkling  which  was  employed  in  the  observance  of  the 
rite.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  inevitably  follows  that  baptizo  means  to  sprink- 
le. This  case  is  so  perfectly  clear,  that  if  the  passage  was  translated  thus,  it 
may  be  regarded  as  fully  authorized  ;  "  He  that  sprinkleth  himself  after  the 
touchino-  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  availeth  his  washing." 

"  In'Heb.  ix.  10,  we  read  of  a  ritual  service  which  stood  only  in  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  washings."  In  the  Greek,  it  is  divers  baptisms.  These  divers 
baptisms  belonged  to  the  Old  Testatment  dispensation.  What  baptisms  are 
here  alluded  to,  we  learn  from  verses  13, 19,  2L  They  were  sprinklings 
performed  with  blood  and  water.  "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean   sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 

*  Dutch,  Gewasschen.  Cleanseth. 


12 

flesh."  "For  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  the  people  according  tv> 
the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  water  and  scarlet  wool 
and  hysop,  and  sp-inkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people."  "Moreover,he  sprink- 
led likewise  with  blood,  both  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry." 

These  sprinklings  were  the  divers  baptisms  to  which  the  allusion  is  made. 
The  Spirit  of  inspiration,  therefore,  has  taught  us,  in  this  case,  to  understand 
aspersion  to  be  baptism. 

In  1  Cor.  X,  1,  2.  we  read  that  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Jewish  nation  "  were  un- 
der the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea  ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Mo- 
ses, in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

In  this  passage,  the  word  bapliso  is  used  solely  in  reference  to  sprinkling. 
For  it  is  manifest  that  neither  the  cloud  above  them,  nor  the  sea  on  either  side  of 
them,  touched  the  Israelites.  They  went  through  the  midst  of  the  sea  on  dry 
ground,  and,  consequently,  the  baptism  to  which  they  were  subjected,  took  place 
on  dry  ground,  and  was  not  an  immersion.  No  immersion  can  be  received  on 
dry  ground. 

Dr.  Gill,  an  Immersionalist,  and  a  voluminous  commentator,  says  ;  "the  cloud 
which  went  before  the  Israelites,  and  stood  behind  them,  and  was  between  the 
two  camps  to  keep  off  the  Egyptians,  which  as  it  passed  over  them  let  down  a 
plentiful  rain  upon  them  ;  whereby  they  were  in  such  a  condition  as  if  they  had 
been  all  over  dipped  in  water." 

But  this  is  giving  up  the  controversy  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tizo,  and  is  admitting  that  baptism  may  be  received  by  the  descent  of  the  baptis- 
mal element.  According  to  his  interpretation,  it  would  be  valid  baptism  if  suf. 
ficicnt  water  be  poured  upon  individuals  so  as  thoroughly  to  drench  them,  and 
put  them  in  such  a  condition  as  if  they  had  been  "  all  over  dipped  in  water." 

This  confession,  which  yields  the  point  in  debate,  in  respect  to  the  significa- 
tion of  baptizo,  and  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  pouring  as  a  mode  of  baptism', 
does  not,  however,  go  far  enough.  The  circumstances  of  the  Israelites,  as  they 
passed  through  the  midst  of  the  sea,  do  not  seem  to  imply  tliat  they  were  thor- 
oughly drenched  by  rain  from  the  cloud.  The  rain  did  indeed  fall  upon  them 
from  the  cloud,  (Pe.  Ixxvii,  17)  but  then,  it  must  have  been  a  gentle  rain  which 
was  poured  upon  them,  for  the  Israelites  went  through  the  sea  on  dry  ground. 
For  in  Ex.xiv.  21,22,  it  i.s  said'  "  the  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back  by  a  strong 
east  wind  all  night,  and  made  the  sea  dry  land,  and  the  children  of  Israel  went 
into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  dry  ground."  A  very  heavy  drenching  rain  would 
have  made  the  gronnd  very  wet.  But  the  ground  continued  dry.  It  was,  there- 
fore, a  sprinkling  rain  which  descended  upon  the  Israelites,  as  a  heavier  rain 
would  have  moistened  the  ground.  Hence  the  oaptism  of  the  Israelites  unto 
Moses,  was  a  sprinkling. 

2.  Baptizo  means  to  cleanse  with  water,  and  to  purify,  without  reference  to  the 
mode. 


13 


Jt  has  this  Bignificalion  in  the  Apochryphal  book^  Jaditb,  chap.  xii. 


f    Kai  e^eiropcvero    Kara  ivkto  m  rijv  (papayya 
ffervXoia,  *^Kai  tliami^cra  iv  rij  napenPuXfj  im 


"And  she  (Judith)  went  out  in  the 
night  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia  and' 
baptized  herself  at  a  fountain  that  was 
in  the  camp." 


Judith  wag  a  Jewess,  and  alone  in  a  camp  of  200,000  Syrians.  She  had  en- 
tered  that  camp  to  destroy  Holofernes,  the  commander  of  the  Syrian  army.  She 
could  not  accomplish  her  purpose  without  preserving'  the  utmost  cleanliness  of 
person.  She  visited  the  fountain  of  water  in  the  camp,  to  cleanse,  or  wash  her- 
self. She  might  have  done  this,  and  not  have  done  anything  inconsistent  with 
propriety,  and  the  delicacy  which  her  situation  required.  But  if  she  had  bathed^ 
or  immersed  herself  in  the  fountain,(if  it  had  been  deep  enough  for  that  purpose) 
it  would  have  been  an  insult  oiFered  to  the  Assyrians,  (for  it  furnished  them  with 
their  supply  of  water)  and  it  \rould  have  been  an  act  of  immodesty  which  would 
have  completely  frustrated  the  accomplishment  of  her  scheme. 

Mark  vii.  4.  "  And  when  they  (the  Pharisees  and  Jev/a)  come  from  the  mar- 
ket, except  they  wash  they  eat  not."  The  word  in  the  Greek,  is  baptize..  This 
passage  does  not  refer  to  the  persons  themselves  as  being  baptized,  for  the  Jews 
had  no  such  custom  as  that  of  washing  their  bodies  in  water  after  they  had  been 
10  market.  The  context  teaches  us  that  the  reference  is  to  washing  their  hands. 
This  subject  is  introduced  in  the  following  words:  •'  And  Vi^hen  they  saw  some 
of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled  hands,  they  found  fault.  Then  follows  the 
explanation  ;  For  the  Pharasees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands 
oft,  eat  not ;  and  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat 
not.  Then  the  Pharasees  and  scribes  asked  him,  why  walk  not  thy  disciples 
according  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  but  eat  bread  with  unwashen  hands."  f 

From  these  words,  it  is  manifest  that  the  washing  which  the  Pharasees  and 
Jews  regarded  with  such  scfupulousness  after  tliey  had  been  to  market,  was  an. 
ablution  of  the  hands.  But  this  cleansing  of  their  hands,  which  was  probably 
done  with  water  streaming  upon  them  from  a  watering  pot,  we  are  taught  was  a. 
baptism. 

"  And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  (the  Jews  and  Pharasees)  have 


*  Dutch — "  Ende  sy  iciesch  haEer  in  het  leger,  in   de  water  fonteyne." 
she  washed  herself  in  the  camp  at  the  fountain. 


And 


t  Dutch — vs.  3.  For  the  Pharasees  and  all  the  Jews  eat  not,  without  washing 
(first)  the  hands  often,  (or,  with  the  fist ;  as  they  that  will  wash  their  hands  very 
clean,  use  to  rub  the  hand  with  the  fist ;  or  carefully.  Or,  up  to  the  elbow,  as 
some  report  the  Jews  custom  was  to  do,)  holding  the  institution;  (Gr.  holding 
fast,  or  laying  hold  on)  the  tradition  of  the  ancients,  (or,  of  the  elders.) 

Vs.  5.  Afterwards  the  Scribes  and  the  Pharasees  asked  him,  wherefore  do  not 
thy  disciples  walk,  [that  is,  live  ;  a  Hebrew  phrase  ;'^  as  Ps.  i.  1,  and  throughout] 
after  the  institution  of  the  ancients,  or,  (of  the  elders)  but  eat  bread  with  imu^ashen 
hands. 


14 

received  to  holtl,  as  the  washing  ofcupg,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels  and  of  tables.* 
The  washing  of  cups,  &-c.  in  the  Greek,  is  the  baptism  o[  cups,  &c.  "The  cups 
were  drinkinaf  vessels  used  at  meals,  the  pots  were  measures  of  liquids,  and  were 
vessels  made  of  wood,  and  were  used  to  hold  wine,  vinegar  and  other  liquids. 
The  brazen  vessels  were  used  in  cooking,  or  otherwise.  These,  if  much  pollu- 
ted, were  commonly  passed  through  the  fire ;  if  slightly  polluted,  they  were 
washed." 

The  term  tables,  in  the  Greek,  is  couches.  It  refers  to  the  couches  on  which 
they  reclined  at  meals.  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Gill.f  "  The  custom  among 
the  Jews,  was  not  to  eat  sitting,  as  we  do,  but  reclining  on  couches.  The  table 
was  made  by  three,  raised  like  ours,  and  placed  so  as  to  form  a  square,  with  a 
clear  space  in  the  midsi,  and  one  end  quite  open.  On  the  sides  ot  them  were 
placed  cushions,  capable  of  containing  three  or  more  persons.  On  these  the 
Jews  reclined  when  they  took  their  meals,  leaning  on  the  left  side,  with  their 
feet  extended  from  the  table,"  as  in  tiie  following  figure. 


C 

c 

B 

C 

B 

A 

B 

• 

: 

A,  represents  the  open  space  between  the  tables.  B.  B.  B,  The  tables.  C.  C.  C, 
The  couches  on  which  they  reclined  at  meals  ;  the  head  being  next  to  the  table 
and  the  feet  extending  back  horizontally. 

*Dutch. — And  (coming)  from  the  market,  [because  there  they  dealt  with  all 
sorts  of  men,  Gentiles  and  others,  and  touched  many  other  things,  whereby  they 
held  themselves  defiled]  they  eat  not  except  they  be  first  washed.  (Greek,  baptized; 
which  signifies  both  to  dip  into  the  water,  and  also  to  wash  off.  Gr.  "  gedoopt  't 
vvelck  indoopen  in 't  water  en  ook  afwaschen,"  from  whence  the  holy  baptism 
hath'its  denomination.)  And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to 
hold  (a.s  namely)  the  washing  of  drinking  cups,  and  pots.  (The  Greek  word 
Xestes  signifies  the  sixth  part  of  a  Congius,  i.  e.  about  a  Dutch  pint  and  a  half] 
and  brazen  vessets  and  beds.  [That  is,  bedsteads,  or  the  sides  of  the  beds,  where- 
on the  ancients  layer  leaned  on  at  the  Table  for  to  eat,  instead  of  our  sitting."] 

f  Commenting  on  Mark  vii.  4,  he  says,  "to  give  further  trouble,  it  is  insisted 
on,  that  the  v^-ord  should  be  rendered  beds  ;  and  it  must  be  owned  that  it  is  so 
rendered  in  the  Syriac,  Persic,  and  Ethiopic  versions,  and  in  many  modern  trans- 
lations :  and  we  are  contented  it  should  be  so  rendered.  And  these  beds  design 
cither  the  couches  they  lay,  or  leaned  upon  at  meals  ;  or  the  beds  they  slept  in  at 
ni^ht." 


15 

i^ow,  aa  each  of  these  tables  could  not  have  t)ecn  less  tlim  four  foot  higl),  tlirce 
or  four  feet  wide,  and  six  or  eight  feet  long-,  and  the  couches  were  proportional, 
the  couches  must  have  been  six  feet  high,  six  or  eight  feet  long,  and  at  least  six  feo.t 
wide.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  such  cumbersome  and  heavy  articles  of  furni- 
ture were  immersed  in  water.  It  would  be  impracticable  to  plunge  entirely  un- 
der water,  after  every  meal,  such  articles  even  in  this  country,  though  it  is  every 
where  well  watered,  and  abounds  in  large  streams  of  water.  How  unlikely  is  it 
that  this  was  done  in  Judea,  a  country  where  water,  even  in  small  quantities, 
was  scarce  and  hard  to  be  obtained.  The  word  baptism,  therefore,  here  must 
denote  some  other  application  of  water  than  submerging  under  water.  "It 
must  be  used  in  the  sense  of  washing  in  any  way.  And  if,  as  is  clear,  to  de- 
note anything  except  entire  immersion,  it  may  be  elsewhere  ;  and  baptism  is 
lawfully  performed  without  immersing  the  body  under  water." 

Again,  Luke  xi.  38.  "And  when  the  pharasee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he 
(Jesus)  had  not  first  washed,  [Greek,  baptized]  before  dinner."  The  idea  here 
again  is  not  an  immersion  of  the  body.  Lightfoot  says  "  it  was  not  necessary, 
neither  was  it  the  custom  [of  the  Jews]  before  meals,  to  wash  the  whole  body, 
but  the  hands  only."  The  Pharasee,  therefore,  marvelled  that  "  a  man  of  so 
much  religion  and  holiness"  as  the  Saviour,  "should  lay  down  on  one  of  the 
couches  and  begin  to  eat"  with  unwashen  hands,  "  and  should  ^shew  no  regard 
to  a  common  custom  with  them,  and  which  was  one  of  the  traditions  of  their 
elders,  and  which  they  put  upon  a  level  with  the  commands  of  God." 

"The  origin  of  the  custom  of  washing  before  they  partook  of  their  meals,  with 
so  much  formality,  was  that  they  did  not  use,  as  we  do,  knives  and  forks,  but 
used  their  hands  only.  Hence,  as  their  hands  would  be  often  in  a  dish  on  the 
tablCj  it  was  esteemed  proper  that  they  should  be  washed  clean  before  eatino-^ 
Nor  was  there  impropriety  in  the  thing  itself,  but  the  Pharasees  made  it  a  mat- 
ter of  ceremony ;  they  placed  no  small  part  of  their  religion  in  such  ceremonies ; 
and  it  was  right,  therefore,  that  our  Lord  should  take  occasion  to  reprove  them 
for  it."  Washing  of  hands,  then,  which  may  have  been  performed  in  various 
ways,  as  cleansing  them  with  a  wet  cloth,  or  rubbing  them  together  in  water  in  a 
basin,  or  under  water  poured  upon  them  from  a'pitcher,  or  the  fawcet  of  a  water- 
ing pot,  we  are  here  taught  is  a  baptism.. 

The  word  baptism  is  used  as  synonymous  with  purification  in  John  iii,  25. — 

"  Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews, 
about  purifying." 

This  question,  or  dispute  about  "purification,  is  proved  by  the  circumstances 
which  led  to  it,  to  have  been  about  baptism.*  These,  as  stated  by  the  Evangel- 
ist were,  that  "  Jesus  and  his  disciples  came  into  the  land  of  Judea  ;  and  there 
he  tarried  with  them  and  baptized,  and  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near 

*  Then  there  arose  a  question  [or  difference]  [by  some]  of  the  disciples  of  John 
vnththe  Jews,  about  purifying.  Namely,  about  comparing  of  the  worthiness  of 
the  baptism  of  John,  witii  the  Jewish  purifications  ;  or,  of  the  baptism  of  John, 
with  the  baptism  of  Christ's  disciples."     Dutch  Bible  and  Annotations. 


16 

-Salini,  because  there  wm  much  water  there  ;  and  they  came  and  were  baptized.'* 

Here  were  two  baptisms.  Christ  had  set  up  his  after  John,  and  as  greater 
•numbers  attended  his  baptism  than  John's,  it  seemed  to  argue  that  they  consid- 
ered his  baptism  as  conferring  a  greater  degree  of  purity  than  John's,  and  that 
the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ  was  becoming  most  popular.  The  Jews,  it  seem?, 
made  or  drew  lliis  inference,  and  stated  it  to  John's  disciples.  This  naturally 
enkindled  the  zeal  of  John's  disciples  in  behalf  of  his  baptism,  and  led  them  to 
contend  that  it  was  superior  to  that  of  Christ.  Hence,  it  was  the  claims  of  two 
apparently  rival  baptisms  which  originated  the  question  between  some  of  John's 
disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying.  The  dispute  about  purification,  there- 
fore, was  a  dispute  about  baptism. 

« 

This  view  of  the  case  is  established  beyond  all  controversy,  by  the  reference  of 
this  dispute  about  purification  by  the  parties,  to  John  as  a  question  about  bap- 
tism. The  parties  not  being  able  to  settle  the  discussion  satisfactorily  between 
themselves,  came  to  John,  and  said  to  him,  "  Rabbi,  he  that  wag  with  thee  be- 
yond Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  record,  behold  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all 
min  come  to  him."  This  reference  shews  that  the  debate  about  purification, 
turned  chiefly  on  the  point  of  the  superiority  of  Christ's  baptism,  and  its  being 
likely  entirely  to  supercede  that  of  John.  Hence,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable, 
that  the  word  baptism,  in  this  case,  means  purification. 

In  confirmation  of  the  idea  that  Christ's  baptism  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as 
8  purification,  we  may  appeal  to  the  fact  tliat  it  wbs  foretold  of  Christ,  that  he 
should  purify.  The  prophets  have  designated  Christ  as  a  purifier,  but  in  no  case 
08  one  who  should  immerse.  In  Malichi  iii.  1,  3,  it  is  said,  "The  Lord  whom 
ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  covenant, 
whom  ye  delight  in  :  behoM  he  shall  come,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  -Butv/ho 
may  abide  the  day  of  his  coming?  And  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth  ? 
for  he  is  like  a  refiner's  fire,  and  like  fullers  soap,  nnd  he  shall  sit  a  refiner  and 
purijisr  of  silver,  and  he  shall  purify  the  son's  of  Levi  and  purge  them  as  gold 
end  silver."  In  Ezekiel  xxxvi,  2.%  the  Lord  promises  under  the  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  to  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  his  people,  and  he  says,  and  ye  shall  be 
purified ;  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your   idols  will   I  purify  you." 

In  Isaih  Iii,  15,  it  is  said  of  the  Messiah,"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations," 
which  is  rendered  in  the  Syric  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  which  is  very  an- 
cient, <'  thus  shall  he  purify  many  nations." 

These  passages,  the  Jews  understood  of  baptism,  for  they  expected  that  Christ 
would  baptize  when  he  should  come.  They  sent  Priests  and  Levites  to  John 
when  he  began  to  baptize,  (and  before  the  question  was  settled  whether  he  was 
the  expected  Messiah  or  not)  to  ask  him  "  who  art  thou,  and  why  baptizeth 
thou  tliem,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet  ?  " 

Now,  observe,  the  first  inquiry  does  not  demand  John's  authority  for  baptizing, 
but  simply  who  he  is,  whether  Christ,  Elias,  or  that  prophet  1  It  implies  no 
surprise,  it  expresses  no  disapprobation,  that  he  should  baptize  provided  he  was 
the  Christ.  They  did  not  dispute  his  authority  and  right  to  baptize  in  that  case; 
«hey  asked  only  for  his  credentials. 


But;  the  second  inquiry  Implies  both  surprise  and  disapprobation  ,  <•  why  bap- 
tizeth  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ",  &c.  As  soon  as  they  ascertained 
that  he  was  not  the  person  they  had  supposed,  they  immediately  question  the 
propriety  of  his  conduct  in  administering  baptism  to  the  people.  It  is,  therefore, 
evident  that  the  Jews  expected  that  Christ  would  baptize. 

Now,  this  belief  they  must  have  founded  on  those  predictions  in  the  Old  Test- 
ament,  which  represent  Christ  as  a  purifier.  There  is  no  other  source  from 
which  they  could  have  derived  this  opinion.  Hence,  they  regarded  purification 
and  baptism,  [baptismos  <$•  kalharvsmos,  baptizo  ^-  katharizo]  as  synonymous,  and 
consequently  when  they  disputed  with  John's  disciples  respecting  the  relative 
claims  of  the  baptism  of  John  and  Christ,  they  called  baptism,  purification. 

The  synonymous  character  of  these  words,  is  furthermore,  established  by  the 
fact  that  purify  is  the  term  which  exactly  expresses  the  meaning  of  baptiza 
in  a  majority  of  cases  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  j  in 
some  instances,  is  the  only  one  except  baptize,  which  will  make  good  sense.    . 

Insert  the  word  purify,  in  the  following  passages,  and  the  reading  will  be  nat- 
ural, and  the  sense  obvious.  "  I  purify  you  with  water,"  &c^ ''  John  truly  purified 
with  waters"  &c.  "  Jesus  was  pwr(^etZ  of  John  in  Jordan."  "Jesus  being  pw- 
ri^ed  and  praying."  " They  were ywri^ec?,  both  men  and  women."  "Repent 
and  be  purified,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  "  See  here  is 
vvater,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  he  purified." 

The  following  examples  furnish  instances  in  which  the  word  purify  expresses 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  better  than  any  other  word  except  baptize. 

Math.  iii.  ll.  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  vvith  fire."  Insert  the  word  purify,  <<how  natural  the  state- 
ment and  obvious  the  meaning"  ;  I  indeed  purify  you  with  v/ater,  but  he  shall 
purify  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire,  i.  e.  "I  perform  an  external  and 
symbolical  rite,  by  which  the  body  is  cleansed  with  water,  but  he  shall  perform 
a  higher  purification,  in  which  the  mind  is  purified"*  by  the  efficacious,  or  refin- 
ing power  of  the  Spirit  of  God.f 

Take  now,  the  word  imrrtei'se,  and  insert  it  in  the  place  of  baptize,  and  the  con- 
struction becomes  at  once  unnatural.  "I  indeed  immerse  you  with  water,  but 
he  shall  immerse  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  It  is  not  good  En- 
glish to  say  immersed  with  water,  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire.  Hence, 
the  insertion  of  the  word  immerse,  requires  that  the  Greek  particle  ev,  [en] 
translated  with,  should  be  rendered  in,  to  make  the  sentence  tolerable  English. 
But  with  this  alteration,  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  obscured,  if  not  destroy- 
ed ;  for  what  idea  is  conveyed  by  the  expression  I  "  I  immerse  you  in  the  Holy 
Ghost  and,  in  fire." 

*  President  E.  Beecher  Bib.  Repository,  vol.  3, 1840. 

t  "  John  here  distinguisheth  his  outward  baptism  from  t  he  inward  baptism  of 
Christ,  whereby  he  purifielh  our  hearts  by  his  spirit,  as  the  fire  doth  the  metal 
from  all  allovs  and  impurity,"— Z^w/cA  Annotations. 

3 


18 

If  it  is  said  that  immersing  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  fire,  means  imbuing  large- 
ly with  the  efficacious  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  then  the  antithesis  will  re- 
quire that  the  first  member  of  the  sentence,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water," 
should  be  understood  of  imbuing  with  water.  But  to  give  it  this  signification, 
is  to  lose  sight  of  immersion,  except  as  a  mode  of  imbuing,  and  is  to  admit  that 
baptizo,  in  this  passage,  does  not  mean  exclusively  to  immerse.  The  term  im- 
bue, means  to  dye,  tinge  deeply,  to  moisten  to  such  a  degree  that  a  color,  odon 
or  the  like  is  imbued.  Immersion  may  be  a  mode  of  imbuing,  and  so  may  pour- 
ing, sprinkling  ahd  pressing  ;  hence,  immersing  is  not  necessarily  included  in 
the  idea  of  imbuing ;  since  there  are  other  ways  of  imbuing.  To  give  the  pas- 
sage this  meaning,  therefore,  is  to  recede  from  the  position  that  baptizo  means 
only  to  immerse. 

In  i  Cor.  xii,  13,  it  is  said,  "By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit." 

The  agent  of  baptism  in  this  case,  is  said  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  body 
into  which  we  are  all  baptized,  is  the  spiritual  and  invisible  body,  or  church  of 
Christ.  So  Dr.  Gill  understood  it,  for  he  says,  "It  is  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  in 
regeneration  and  sanctificatioji  which  is  here  intended,  which  grace  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  is  frequently  called  a  baptism,  by  which  spiritual  baptism, 
they  [i.  e.  Christians]  are  brought  into  one  body ;  the  mystical  body  of  Christ, 
the  universal  and  invisible  church  of  Christ." 

The  baptism,  therefore,  here  spoken  of,  is  not  the  baptism  of  water,  but  of  the 
spirit.  Now.  as  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  cleansing  and  renewing  of 
the  heart,  purified  is  the  very  word  which  gives  the  proper  meaning  of  baptized, 
in  this  passage.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  does  not  immerse  the  mind,  but  purify  it." 
The  Holy  Ghost  does  not  unite  us  to  the  Spiritual  body  of  Christ,  by  immersing 
our  bodies  or  minds,  but  by  the  purifying  of  our  hearts.  "  According  to  his  mer. 
cy,  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour." 

'  If  it  is  said  to  weaken  the  strength  of  this  argument,  that  purification  involves 
immersion,  and  that  therefore  baptizo  means  to  immerse,  it  may  be  replied  that 
it  does  not  confine  it  to  that  sense,  since  purification  involves  also  washing,  bath- 
ing, pouring  and  sprinkling.    All  of  them  equally  are  modes  of  purifying; 

Furthermore,  immersion  is  not  necessarily  connected  with  purification,  for  it 
is  a  fact  that  "  no  word  necessarily  denoting  immersion  was  employed  to  repre- 
sent the  purification  of  persons  under  theMosaic  ritual."  The  Heb.  word  used  was 
Raliats,  which  means  to  wash,  or  purify,  without  reference  to  mode.  The  def- 
finitions  which  are  given  to  this  word  in  the  lexicons  of  Simonis  and  Gesenius, 
are  "to  wash,  to  lave,  to  bathe."  President  Beecher  says  if  any  one  will  taken 
Hebrew  concordance,  and  trace  the  word  through  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, he  will  have  abundant  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  statement  in  respect 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word ;  and,  he  adds  that  the  whole  Mosaic  ritual,  "  as  to 
personal  ablution  or  purification,  could  be  fulfilled  to  the  letter  without  a  single 
immersion." 


19 


RGMIRRS. 


This  subject  saggeets,  in  concluding,  the  following  remarks. 

1.  Immersion  as  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism,  cannot  be  proved  by  the  sig- 
nification of  the  word  baptizo.  When  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  this  word 
means  in  every  case  to  immerse,  then  immersion  alone  will  be  proved  to  be  valid 
baptism.  If  it  means  to  wash,  to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  to  cleanse  or  purify  without 
reference  to  mode,  then  the  rite  of  baptism  may  be  administered  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  and  it  is  valid. 

Finally.  It  is  not  zeal  for  an  ordinance,  or  a  particular  mode  of  observing  it 
that  will  render  us  acceptable  to  God,  but  it  is  the  keeping  of  God's  command- 
ments, and  the  waiting  upon  him  in  his  ordinances  with  holiness  of  heart  that 
will  prepare  us  to  enjoy  his  favor. 

Baptism  is  not  a  saving  ordinance.  There  is  nothing  saving,  therefore,  to  be 
attached  to  the  mode  of  our  baptism.  "For  neither  circumcision  availeth  any 
thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature."  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me.  Lord, 
Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my 
Fathet  which  is  in  Heaven."  These  declarations  shew  us  that  however  firmly  we 
may  cling  to  forms,  or  outward  ordinances  of  religion,  they  will  not  save  us,  un- 
less to  our  faith  in  them,  we  add  obedience  to  all  the  laws  of  Christ.  How  de- 
sirous our  blessed  Lord  was  to  impress  this  sentiment  on  the  minds  of  his  disci- 
ples, is  evident  from  the  parting  direction  which  he  gave  them  after  he  had  pre- 
scribed the  form  of  words  to  be  used  in  baptism.  He  adds,  "  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  This  farewell  injunction 
of  our  blessed  Lord,  therefore,  requires  us  not  to  lay  a  particular  stress  on  bap- 
tism and  a  peculiar  mode  of  administering  it,  or  any  other  ordinance,  but  upon 
obedience  to  all  the  requirements  of  the  Gospel.. 

He  has  consequeetly  shewn  his  foUowersr,  that  their  zeal  should  be  expended 
about  vital  religion  and  not  baptism ;  he  has  taught  his  ministers  that  it  is  their 
first  and  principal  business,  in  all  their  instructions,  to  inculcate  unreserved  obe- 
dience to  God  in  every  thing,  both  of  the  heart  and  life,  as  the  sum  and  substance 
of  true  religion ;  and  he  has  clearly  intimated  to  those  who  neglect  this  branch 
of  their  duty,  and  labor  more  to  induce  men  to  observe  a  religious  rite  in  a  cer- 
tain way,  than  to  practice  the  piety  of  which  that  rite  is  significant— to  seek  the 
shadow  rather  than  the  substance, "  that  they  are  guilty  of  manifesting  a  marked 
contempt  of  ,the  very  last  command  that  feir  from  the  lips  of  their  departiug 
Lord." 


^ 

1 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Romans  ii,  28,  29.     "  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  that  is  one  outwardly,  neither  . 
that  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  ;  but  he  is  a   Jew  which  is  one 
inwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  let- 
ter, whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God." 

There  are  strictly  speaking  but  two  kinds  of  religion,  the  religion  of  form,  and 
the  religion  of  the  heart.  The  former  attaches  an  undue  importance  to  external 
rites,  and  makes  religion  consist  too  much  in  a  particular  mode  of  observing  them. 
The  latter  regards  religion  as  spiritual,  having  its  seat  in  the  affections,  its  out- 
ward ordinances  as  carnal  and  of  no  value,  except  as  means  of  grace  and  in- 
struction, and  the  particular  manner  of  observing  them  unessential  so  long  as 
their  substance  and  significance  are  retained. 

In  this  world,  spiritual  things  are  represented  to  men  by  symbols,  because 
they  receive  their  knowledge  through  the  senses,  which  are  the  ialets  to  the  mind, 
In  consequence  of  this  organization  of  our  natures,  we  are  creatures  of  sense, 
naturally  inclined  to  take  the  shadow  for  the  substance,  and  lay  undue  stress  up- 
on the  outward  rites  of  religion.  Attaching  loo  much  importance  to  the  observ- 
ance of  a  religious  ordinance,  constituted  one  of  the  errors  of  the  Jews.  They 
exalted  circumcision  above  every  thing  else  connected  with  the  service  of  God, 
considering  it  a  badge  of  holiness,  and  a  passport  to  Heaven.  To  correct  this 
erroneous  sentiment,  the  Apostles  found  it  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the 
circumcision  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  heart,  and  to  assure  their  hearers  that  a  true 
Israelite  was  not  one  who  was  outwardly  circumcised  merely,  but  whose  cir- . 
cumcision  was"  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter;  whose 
praise  was  not  of  men  but  of  God." 

Many,  like  the  Jews,  cling  to  forms.  They  regard  the  observance  of  baptism 
in  a  particular  mode:  and  connection  with  a  particular  church,  as  of  more  value 
than  faith  and  holiness.  This  attachment  to  an  outward  ordinance  is  deeply  to 
be  reorretted.  It  fosters  a  zeal  about  a  matter  which  in  itself  is  of  little  import- 
ance, and  creates  a  sectarian  and  exclusive  spirit  which  endangers  the  salvation 
of  souls,  and  retards  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  Christ.  Baptism  is  impor- 
tant in  its  place,  but  among  those  who  profess  the  religion  of  Jesus,  it  should  be 
considered  only  as  an  ordinance,  and  no  dependence  for  salvation  should  be  plac- 
ed on  any  thing  but  the  righteousness  and  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  "  For 
baptism  as  to  its  saving  efficacy,  as  is  said  of  circumcision,  is  nothing;  but  the 
keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God."     With  a  full  conviction  of  the  sentiment 


22 

ot  the  text,  that  ai>  ordinance  is  of  less  importance  than  the  state  of  the  heart,  anJ 
is  of  no  vahif?  at  all  without  piety,  we  proceed  in  our  discussion  of  the  mode  of 
baptism. 

We  propose  in  this  discourse  to  notice  several  assumptions  of  the  Immersion 
alists,  in  regard  to  the  explanation  of  the  word  haptizo,  and  to  adduce  further 
proof  of  the  validity  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  as  a  mode  of  bap  tiara. 

1.  The  Immersionalisis  assume,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  primary,  radical,  and 
classical  meaning  o^  haptizo,  is  to  immerse  totally  ;  i.  e.  to  submerge  or  plunge 
the  whole  of  an  object  entirely  under  wrter. 

The  classic  Greek  was  written  by  ancient  Greek  authors,  who  wrote  pure 
Greek.  The  appeal  to  these  writers,  however  can  be  met.  They  did  not  al- 
ways use  the  word  baptiso  to  denote  the  entire  submerging  and  covering  of  an 
object  with  water.     This  is  evident  from  the  following  examples. 

\   Porphyry,  speaking  of  the  sinner  in  the  Styx,  the  famous  river  of  Hell,  says ; 

'•  OTavjSc  Karayopovjicvoi  tviffrj^   avaftapTrjros 


ftsv  CIV  aSeus  iup^^CTai  a^pt  tuiv  yovarcov  c^uv 
TO  vibsp,  ajtaprwv  Si,  oXiyoK  rrpoffai  ffanri^erai 
fiC^pt  Ke(pa'Xris.'' 

Polybius  says, 

5  "  fioXii  ccoj  TOiy  fia^o)v  oi  ve^oi  PairTt^oiiCiot 
iu^aivovy 


''  When  the  accused  person  enters  the 
river,  if  he  is  innocent,  he  passes  boldly 
through,  having  the  water  up  to  his 
knees  ;  but  if  guilty,  having  advanced  a 
little,  he  is  baptized  up  to  the  head.*' 


"  The  foot  soldiers  passed  with  diffi- 
culty, baptized  up  to  the  breast." 


Strabo,  speaking  of  Alexander's  soldiers  marching  a  whole  day  through  the 
tide  between  the  mountain  Climax  and  the  sea,  says  : 

"  ixcxpi- oii<pa\ov  fiaiiTi^ontvoiv.'^  \    "They  were  baptized  Up  to  the  middle." 

The  verse  of  the  oracle  quoted  from  Plutarch,  Carson  translates, 

"AfKoj  panri^n,  ivvai  6c  toi  ov  dcfiti  csri.'     I     "  Thou  mavest  be  baptized,  O  bladder  ! 

'but  thou  art  not  fated  to  sink." 

He  remarks  pp.  89,  90,  "The  expression  in  this  verse  is  allegorical,  literally 
referring  to  a  leathern  bottle,  which,  when  empty,  swims  on  the  surface,  if  suffi- 
ciently  filled,  will  dip,  but  will  not  sink." 

The  Greek  scholiast  on  Aratus,  speaking  of  the  crow,  says,  "  The  crow  often 
(ebaptisen)baptizes  herself  from  the  head  to  the  top  of  her  shoulders  in  the  river." 

These  cases  prove  that  ancient  Greek  writers  understood  tha  partial  covering 
of  a  person,  or  object,  with  water,  to  be  a  baptism.  Hence,  if  they  are  called  in 
to  give  their  judgement  in  reference  to  the  meaning  of  haptizo,  it  is  against  the 
practice  of  the  Immersionalists.  They  decide,  that  if  the  head  on\y  of  the  can- 
didate be  dipped  in  water,  or  if  he  ^vade  in  the  water  up  to  his  middle  or  breast. 


23 

or  if  he  is  let  down  into  the  water  up  to  his  head,  vvitliout  beinnr  plunged  all  ovn? 
in  water,  that  he  is  baptized. 

Again.  The  ancient  Greeks  used  the  word  baptizo,  in  a  sense  which  entirely 
excludes  the  idea  of  immersion  as  the  act  of  plunging  any  thing  under  water. 

Aristotle  says,  "  They  relate  of  the  Phoenicians,  who  inhabit  a  place  called 
Gadeira,  (or  Cadiz)  that  sailing  beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  with  an  east 
wind  four  days,  they  came  to  certain  desert  places,  full  of  bull-rushes  and  sea 
weeds  ;  which,  when  it  is  at  ebb  are  not  baptized;  but  when  it  is  flowing  tide, 
are  overflowed."  Now,  Aristotle  does  not  say  that  these  places  are  p  lunged,  or 
dipped,  or  put  into  the  sea  water  below  the  surface,  but  they  are  inundated  or 
covered  by  the  sea  water  flowing  in  upon  them  at  full  tide.  But  ih\s flowing  in 
of  the  water  upon  them  at  the  rising  of  the  tide,  he  calls  baptizing  them.  This 
case,  therefore,  shews  that  a  thing  may  be  baptized,  when  it  is  not  put  into  the 
water,  when  it  is  not  plunged  or  dipped  under  it,  but  when  the  water  is  brought 
in  and  poured  over  it.  Hence,  a  thing  may  be  baptized  when  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion is  not  included,  for  immersion  is  the  act,  not  of  pouring  water  upon  a  thing 
until  it  is  submerged,  but  of  putting  into  the  water  below  the  surface  ;  or  the 
act  of  plunging  or  dipping  into  the  water  until  covered.  If  immersion  therefore 
is  not  always  implied,  how  manifestly  improper  to  insist  that  it  is  requisite  in  the 
Christian  ordinance  of  baptism  to  render  it  valid  ? 

Again.  Homkr  describes  Ajax  killing  Cleobulus,  thus:  '"He  struck 
him  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy  sword  ;  and  the  whole  sword  bicame  warm 
with  the  blood."  This  is  explained  by  Pseudo-Didymus,  by  the  word  baptized, 
with  a  view  to  show  how  much  the  sword  was  imbued,  stained,  or  wetted  with  the 
reeking  blood.  And  Dionisious  Halicarnassus  concerning  the  poetry  of  Ho- 
mer, observes  :  "  That  in  this  phrase  there  is  a  peculiar  emphasis,  which  con- 
sists in  this,  that  the  sword  was  so  baptized,  as  even  to  be  warmed"  with  the 
gushing  blood.  Here,  again,  the  idea  of  immersion  is  excluded.  The  sword 
of  Ajax  is  not  baptized  by  being  plunged  into  or  under  or  through  the  blood  of 
Clrobdlvs,  but  by  the  blood  spirting  or  gushing  out  of  the  wound  on  the 
sword. 

Again.  Plutarch,  in  his  Treatise  of  Education  compares  the  method  of 
instructing  children  to  that  of  watering  plants.  "  For  as  plants  are  nourished 
by  moderate  waterings,  but  pine  away  if  these  are  too  frequent ;  in  like  manner 
the  mind,  by  well  proportioned  labors,  is  improved,  but  when  these  are  more 
than  enough  it  is  baptized,^'  i.  e.  drenched.  Here  again,  neither  plunging  , dip- 
ping or  immersing  is  implied;  "  Plutarch  compares  the  baptizing  of  the  minds 
of  children,  while  their  teachers  instil  various  instructions  into  them,  to  a  gard- 
ner's  pouring  water  upon  his  plants  !" 

Again.  The  word  baptize  is  used  by  profane  authors  to  denote  drunkenness, 
the  condition  of  drunh.nness,  insensibility  and  sleep,  under  inebriation,  of  being 
involved  in  debt  and  overburdened  with  taxes.  "  They  speak  of  being  baptized 
with  wine"  i  e  rendered  drunk,  "of  being  baptized  into  insensibility  and  sleep  un- 


'24 

tier  drunkenness,''  ''  of  being  baptized  by  a  debt  of  5009  myriads,"  and   "  of  the 
common  people  being  baptized  with  taxes." 

Josephus  uses  the  word  in  the  sense  of  overflowed  or  overwhelmed.  Speaking 
of  the  ships  which  carried  the  people  of  Joppa,  after  being  driven  out  of  the  city 
by  the  Roniane,  he  says,  "  the  wave  raised  aloft,  and  holding  them  under  its  con- 
trol, baptized  them ;"  that  is,  overwhelmed  themi  The  word  overwhelm  is  com- 
posed of  two  terms,  over  and  whelm.  Over  expresses  that  which  is  above  us  in 
place  and  position.  Hence,  to  overwhelm  anything,  is  to  overpower  or  bear  it 
down  by  throwing  the  overwhelming  element  upon  it,  not  by  thrusting  it  into,  or 
through  the  element,  as  in  immersion.  A  person  may  be  overwhelmed  on  dry 
land,  but  not  immersed.  Rain,  or  falling  and  drifting  snow  may  descend  in  such 
quantities  upon  a  man  as  to  overwhelm  him,  that  is,  to  overpower  and  bear  him 
down,  but  he  cannot  be  immersed  in  rain  or  in  a  snow  storm.  Overwhelming, 
therefore,  as  it  expresses  motion  from  above,  and  action  upon  an  object,  expres- 
ses the  descent  of  the  baptismal  element,  and  corresponds  with  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  and  not  with  immersion,  which  implies  the  action  of  the  object  itself 
upon  the  inmiersing  element. 

2.  Another  assumption  of  the  Immersionalists  is,  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  ami  the  Greek  of  the  ancient  classic 
authors  ;  that  a  particular  Avord  has  precisely  the  same  meaning  in  the  New 
Testament  that  it  has  in  the  classics,  and  consequently  i^baptizo  uniformly 
means  in  classic  Greek,  to  immerse,  it  has  no  other  meaning  in  the  NewTesta- 
rnenti 

This  position  is  not  only  erroneous,  but  it  furnishes  evidence  of  the  weakness 
of  the  Immersionalists  scheme.  "  For  it  has  long  been  an  acknowledged  fact, 
among  all  who  are  well  versed  in  the  critical  study  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
there  are  peculiarities  in  respect  to  the  forms,  the  use  and  ,  the  construction  of 
wordB,"  which  make  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  differ  from  the  Greek  of 
profane  authors.  Hence,  the  system  which  requires  sucli  a  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion for  Its  defence,  must  be  built  upon  the  sand  and  is  tottering  to  its  fall. 

The  ancient  Greek  writers  were  heathen,  lived  in  countries  remote  from  Ju- 
deaj  and  were  familiar  with  religious  ideas  and  customs  which  were  entirely 
polytheistical.  In  their  hands,  the  Greek  language  was  a  different  thing,  in 
many  respects,  from  what  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  for  they  applied  it'ta 
express  ideas  which  were  adapted  to  the  religious  notions  of  the  heathen.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Je-ws  adapted  the  Greek  language  to  their  peculiar  religious 
notions  and  usages,  and  consequently  employed  it  to  express  ideas  "  which  had 
never  been  compounded  into  existence  in  the  land  of  classic  Greek." 

Hence,  in  expressing  evangelical  notions  in  the  Greek  Janguage,  it  became 
necessary  tor  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to  use  many  words  in  that 
tongue,  in  an  entirely  new  sense,  that  is,  new  to  native  Greeks,  unacquainted 
with  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  Jewsy  and  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the 
word  of  God.  IMany  words,  consequently,  which  had  acquired  a  fixed  meaninrj 
m  classic  Greek,  are  used  in  a  different  sense  in  the  New  Testament.    If,  there- 


ibro,  it  can  be  proved  tliat  a  particular  word,  according  to  classic  usage,  radical' 
]y  and  primarily  means  a  certain  thing,  it  will  not  follow  that  that  word  has  the 
same  signification  in  the  New  Testament.  For  instance,  the  word  TnVn?  [pislis] 
in  classic  Greek  means  simply  belief,  firm  persuasion  of  the  truth  and  veracity  of 
anyone.  But  a  very  common  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
that  act  of  the  soul  by  which  the  sinner  receives  the  offer  of  pardon  and  eternal 
life  through  the  Saviour,  and  continues  to  rely  upon  his  merits  and  mercy  for 
salvation.  This  is  a  meaning  which  no  classic  author  has  ever  given  to  the 
word.  Again,  the  word  iiKatdnwrj  (di-kai-os-u-ne)  was  used  by  the  heathen 
Greek  writers  in  the  sense  of  justice  ;  equity;  rectitude  of  conduct.  But  in  the 
New  Testament  it  frequently  denotes  "  tiie  active  and  passive  obedience  of 
Christ,  whereby  he  perfectly  fulfilled  the  law  and  propitiated  the  justice  of  God  ; 
which  obedience  being  imputed  to  believers  and  received  by  faith,  their  sins  are 
pardoned,  their  persons  accepted,  and  they  are  brought  to  eternal  glory."  This 
is  a  sense  which  was  entirely  new  to  an  ancient  Greek,  for  he  was  acquainted 
with  no  such  doctrine  in  the  whole  range  of  his  religious  ideas.  The  words 
(lyysXoj.  (ag-^cl-os)  TTvcvjxa  (pncu-^ma)  avasrasU  ianas'-ta-sis)  iuirvov  (deip^non)  and  dco;, 
signified  simply  in  the  ancient  classic  Greek,  messenger,  air  or  breath,  standing 
up,  a  full  meal,  as  breakfast  or  supper,  and  a  deity  of  any  kind,  whether  a  god  6i 
goddess.  But  these  terms  in  the  New  Testament,  denote  an  angel,  i.  e.  an  in- 
telligent and  spiritual  being  whom  God  makes  use  of  as  his  minister  to  execute 
the  orders  of  his  providence,  the  Holy  Ghost  the  third  person  in  the  adorable 
trinity,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  after  death,  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per,  *  and  Jehovah,  the  supreme  being.    These  are  meanings,  which  these 

*  Dr.  Woods  remarks  respecting  this'word,  "  that  it  has  a  very  different  sense 
when  applied  to  the  Lord's  supper,  from  what  it  has  in  ordinary  cases,  Eating 
a  morsel  o?  bread  does  not  constitute  a  supper,  a  principal  meal ;  although  this 
is  the  common  signification  of  Deip-non.  But  in  this  religious  rite,  eating  a 
small  morsel  of  bread  is  called  a  supper.  1  Cor.  xi,  26.  And^the  Apostle  charg- 
ed the  Corinthians  with  abusing  the  ordinance,  because  they  made  use  of  mora 
food  than  the  design  of  the  ordinance  required.  Now,  if  the  word  which  de- 
notes one  Christian  rite,  has  a  sense  so  widely  different  from  its  usual  sense, 
why  may  it  not  be  so  with  the  word,  which  denote  the  other  Christian 
rite  ?  As  deipnon  in  reference  to  one'  rite,  signifies,  not  a  usual  meal,  but  only 
B.  very  small  quantity  of  bread,  why  may  not  Baptizo  in  reference  to  the  other 
rite,  signify,  not  a  complete  dipping  or  washing,  but  the  application  of  water  in 
a  small  degree  ?  This  would  present  the  two  institutions  in  the  same  light.  In 
the  first — as  bread  and  wine  are  used,  not  to  nourish  and  invigorate  the  body,  but 
for  spiritual  purposes,  or  as  a  sign  of  spiritual  blessings;  a  very  small  quantity 
is  sufficient.  Indeed  the  Apostle  decides,  that  a  small  quantity  is  better  suited 
to  the  ends  of  the  institution,  than  a  larger  quantity.  So  in  the  other — as  water 
is  used,  not  to  cleanse  the  body,  but  merely  as  a  sign  of  spiritual  purification ;  a 
small  quantity  of  water  must  be  sufficient ;  as  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this 
ordinance,  as  a  small  quantity  of  bread  and  wine  is  for  the  purposes  of  the  other. 
The  nourishment  of  the  body  in  the  one  case,  and  the  cleansing  of  it  in  the  oth- 
er, being  no  part  of  the  end  to  be  answered ;  a  large  quantity  either  of  bread  ^r 
water  can  be  of  no  use."    Woods  on  Infant  Baptism,  pp,  153,  154. 

If  the  word  Deipnon  mea.ns  a  full  meal,  following  out  the  argument  of  the  Im^ 
mersionalists,  unless  they  eat  a  full  7neal  atjthe  Lord's  Table,  they  have  not  eat- 
en the  Lord's  Supper,  and  we  insist  on  it  that  they  must  eat  a  full  meal  at  the 
Lord's  Table  to  be  consistent  with  themselves  ;  or,  if  they  admit  that  taking  the 
smallest  part  of  an  element  at  the  Lord's  Table  is  sufficient,   thcv  muat  also  ad^ 

4 


'26 

^vorde  never  had  in  classic  Greek,  for  the  ancient  heathen  Greeks  had  no  such 
religious  notions. 

Now,  if  you  follow  the  usage  of  the  classic  Greek,  and  translate  these  words 
as  they  understood  them,  you  will  make  nonsense  of  many  passages  of  Script- 
ure. It  will  lead  you  to  render  the  passage  John  iii,  5,  thus — "  Except  a  man 
be  born  of  tfjaier,  and  of  the  air,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." — 
Acts  xxiii,  8,  as  follows — "  For  the  Sadduces  say  that  there  is  no  standing  2ip, 
7ieiilier  messenger,  nor  air;  but  the  Pharasees  confess  both." 

These  statements  shew  that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  differs  material- 
ly  from  the  classic  ;  that  while  it  is  clothed  in  the  same  costume,  its  sentiments 
and  ideas  are  derived  from  the  Hebrew,  and  consequently  it  is  a  false  principle  of 
interpretation  to  determine  the  meaning  of  vvords  in  the  New  Testament  by 
their  signification  in  the  classic  writers.  Hence,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  the 
word  laptizo  uniformly  means  to  dip,'or  plunge  entirely  under  water  in  classic 
writers,  (which  cannot  be  done)  it  would  not  settle  its  meaning  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. The  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  being  Jews,  would  think  of  the 
purifications  and  lustrations  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  when  they  used  the  Vord,  and 
would  use  it  (as  they  evidently  have  In  many  instances)  with  reference  to  those 
lustrations. 

But,  if  the  Immersionalists  insist  that  bapdzo  must  be  rendered  to  dip,  because 
it  is  so  used  in  classic  Greek,  then  we  insist  that  other  words  also  be  rendered 
according  to  their  radical  and  primary  meaning  in  the  same  writers,  and  then 
we  must  read  the  passages  Math,  iii,  11,  "  I  indeed  (Zip  you  in  water — he  shall 
dip  you  in  the  Holy  air  and  in  fire."  John  i.  33,  "  He  that  sent  mc  to  dip  in 
water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  air  descending  and 
remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  dippeth  in  the  Holy  air."  Luke  iii,  21, 
22.  "  Now  when  all  the  people  were  dipped  it  came  to  pass,  that  Jesus  also  being 
dipped  and  praying,  the  heaven  was  opened,  the  holy  air  descended  in  a  bodily 
shape  like  a  dove  upon  him." 

How  shocking  thus  to  treat  the  word  of  God.  But,  consistency  with  their 
own  principles  of  interpreting  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  in  order  to 
prove  that  baptixo  always  means  to  dip,  compells  the  Immersionalists  thus  to 
distort  the  Scriptures. 

3.  Another  assumption  of  the  Immersionalists,  is,  that  all  Lexicographers  give 
laptizo  the  sense  of  dippang,  plunging,  or  immersing,  as  the  primitive  and  radi- 
cal meaning  of  the  word. 

This  we  deny.  There  is  a  large  lexicon  of  the  ancient  Greek  language, 
•generally  used  by  native  Greeks,  and  deservedly  held  in  high  estimation  by  all, 
compiled  by  Gases,  a  learned  native  Greek,"  in  which  the  following  deffinitions 
are  given  iobajHizo: 


mit  that  a  little  water  applied  to  a  person  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  is  baptism, 
let  the  original  meaning  of  Baptizo  be  what  it  may.  There  is  as  much  propriety 
in  insisting  on  retaining  the  primary  meaning  o(  Deip-non,  as  oi  Baptizo. 


2T 

1.  To  rvet,  moisten.,  bedew.. 

2.  To  wash,  to  bathe. 

3.  To  draw,  to  pump  water. 

SuiDAs,  a  native  Greek,  who  lived  in  tiie  latter  end  of  the  ninth  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  tenth  century,  compiled  a  Lexicon  of  the  Greek  language,  "which 
ia  valuable  for  the  fragments  it  contains  of  lost  works,  and  the  information  which 
it  affords  respecting  ancient  writers-''  He  gives  the  word  laptizo,  and  renders 
it  according  to  Dr.  Owen  \ 

1.  Madefacio,  to  wet,  to  moisten. 

2.  Lavo,  to  wash,  to  lathe,  to  iesprinkle. 

3.  Abluo,  to  wash,  to  ivash  away,  to  purify. 

4.  PuRGO,  to  purge. 

5.  MuNDO,  to  cleanse,  to  make  clean. 

These  are  the  deffinitions  of  two  Lexicographers  who  are  native  Greeks,  and 
who  of  course  understand  their  own  language,  and  yet  they  do  not  give  dipping, 
or  imjne?-sM2g-,  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  at  all.  Nor  is  such  a  meaning  ne- 
cessarily to  be  inferred  from  any  of  the  deffinitions  given,  for  a  man  may  tvash 
and  JaZfte  himself  without  subjecting  himself  to  an  immersion  of  his  body  all  over 
in  water. 

ScHREVELius,  an  European  Lexicographer,  gives  the  word  baptixo  the  follow- 
ing deffinitions. 

1.  Baptizo,  to  baptize. 

3.  Mergo,  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse. 

3.  Abluo,  to  wash,  to  wash  away,  to  purify. 

4.  Lavo,  to  wash,  to  lathe,  to  besprinkle. 

ScHLEUSNER,  ono  ofthemost  learned  Lexicographers,  says  that  "  Baptiamos 
(^baptism)  is  a  term  which  embraces  nearly  all  the  Levitical  purifications,  and 
quotes  Hebrews  vi,  2,  ix,  10,  to  prove  it."  Many  of  the  Levitical  purifications 
were  sprinklings. 

Dr.  Featly  says  the  word  Baptizo  is  translated  by''HESYCHUs,  a  native 
Greek,  by  Scapula,  and  Bddeus,  in  their  Lexicons  and  Commentaries,  lavo  j 
to  wash,  to  bathe,  to  besprinkle. 

Dr.  Owen  says.  Scapula  gives  Baptizo  the  sense  of  lavo  and  abxuo  ;  to 
wash,  to  wash  away.  Pasor  Lex,  Lond.  1644.  Bapttzo,  to  immerse,  to  wash, 
to  baptize. 


28 

Most  of  the  above  detTinilioas  imply  pouring  and  eprinlding.  'I'o  bodew,  ig  to 
moisten  in  a  gentle  manner,  with  any  liquid,  as  with  dew.  But  dew  falls  in  a 
very  fine  sprinkling.  I  command  my  son  to  wet,  or  moisten  my  garment.  He 
sprinkles  it  with  water.  Does  he  not  obey  my  command?  I  command  him  to 
bathe  my  head  ;  he  pours  water  on  it  very  gently,  or  sprinkles  it  profusely  with 
water.  Does  he  not  bathe  it  ?  I  command  him  to  wash  my  window.  He 
dashes  a  quantity  of  water  against  it,  and  wipes  it  dry  with  a  cloth;  does  he 
not  fulfil  my  injunction  1 

Secondly.  Having  replied  to  the  assumptions  of  the  Immersionalits  in  regard 
to  the  word  baptize,  we  will  now  proceed  to  adduce  further  proof  of  the  validity 
of  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  as  a  mode  of  baptism. 

1.  The  numbers  baptized  by  John  the  Baptist  during  his  short  ministry,  the 
great  multitude  baptized  by  the  Apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  Apostle  Paul  and  the  Jailor's  family  were  baptized, 
furnish  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  baptism  was  administered  in  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  by  some  other  mode  than  immersion. 

An  immense  number  of  persons  attended  on  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,- 
and  appear  to  have  received  baptism.  "  All  Judea,  Jerusalem,  and  the  re- 
gion about  Jordan,  went  out  to  his  baptism,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins."*  Now,  from  some  statements  which  Josephus  has  made 
with  respect  to  the  populousness  of  Palestine,  and  the  great  concourse  of  people 
who  attended  the  yearly  festivals  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  evident  that  there  could  not 
have  been  less  than  about  2,000,000  of  inhabitants  in  Judea  and  Jerusalem,  and 
the  region  of  Jordan.  Jerusalem  alone  must  have  contained  more  than  100,000. 
John's  ministry  lasted  only  about  eighteen  months,  and  a  part  of  that  time  he 
was  shut  up  in  prison  by  Herod.  Supposing  that  out  of  the  2,000,000,  he  bapti- 
zed 500,000  persons,  (which  is  a  moderate  calculation,  being  only  one-fourth 
part  of  the  population,)  that  he  baptized  one  in  a  minute,  and  continued  ten  hours 
every  day  in  tlie  work,  (which  no  man  could  do  unless  supported  by  a  miracle,) 
it  can  be  arithmetically  demonstrated  that  he  could  not  have  immersed  that  num- 
ber during  the  whole  eighteen  months  of  his  ministry.  Hence,  his  baptism  must 
have  been  a  lustration,  performed  by  aspersion,  or  pouring.f 

*  Josephus  says  that  "  John  the  Baptist  was  a  good  man,  and  commanded  the 
Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness  towards  one  another,  and  piety 
towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism"  ;  that  the  people  "  came  in  crowds 
about  him,  for  they  were  greatly  moved  (or  pleased)  by  hearing  his  words,"  and 
that  Herod,  who  feared  le^t  the  great  influence  John  had  over  the  people,  might 
put  it  into  his  power  or  inclination  to  raise  a  rebellion,  (for  they  seemed  to  do 
any  thing  he  should  advise,)  thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to  death,  to  prevent 
any  mischief  he  might  cause,  and  not  bring  himself  into  difiiculties,  by  sparing  a 
man  who  might  make  him  repent  of  it  when  it  should  be  loo  late." — Ant.  Bk. 
xviii,  c.  V.  §2. 

f  Dr.  GuTSE,  who  wrote  a  very  judicious  paraphrase  on  the^books  of  the  New 
Testament,  makes  some  observations  respecting  the  numbers  baptized  bv  John, 
which  deserve  to  be  inserted  here.  He  says,  "  I  cannot  think  that  such  prodio-. 
ious  numbers,  as  came  to  John,  could  be  baptized  in  the  way  of  immersing  their 
whole  bodies  under  water;  or  that  they  were  provided  with  cliangc  of  raiment 


29 

I'liia  viou  of  his  baptism  id  sustained  by  llie  oxpressions  wliich  are  employPLi 
to  denote  liis  baj)tism.  There  are  eight  cases  where  it  is  said  John  baptized 
WITH  ■WATER.  This  language  expresses  a  mode  of  baptism  which  was  adminis- 
tered by  the  appUcation  ol"  water  to  the  subject,  rot  by  the  thrusting  of  tlie  sub- 
ject under  the  water.  This  Dr.  Gill  admits,  for  he  says,  on  Math,  iii,  ll, ''  Our 
version  seems  to  be  calculated  in  favor  of  pouring,  or  sprinkling  water  upon,  op 
application  of  it  to  the  person  baptized,  in  opposition  to  immersion  in  it." 

There  is,  furthermore,  an  apparent  allusion  to  the'mode  of  baptism  as  prac- 
ticed by  John,  [John  iii,  34,]  which  proves  that  it  was  performed  by  the  applicar 
tion  of  water  to  the  person.  "  He  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words  of 
(rod  ;  for  God  giveth  not  the  spirit    by   measure   unto  him."     The   subject  of 

for  it,  which  is  no  where  intimated,  nor  seems  to  have  been  'practicable  for  such 
vast  multitudes  ;  and  yet  they  could  not  be  baptized  naked  with  modesty,  nor  in 
tlieir  wearing  apparel  with  safety.  It  seems,  therefore,  to  me,  that  the  people  stood 
in  ranks,  near  to,  or  just  toUhin,  the  edge  of  the  river  ;  and  Johufassing  along  be- 
fore them,  cast  water  upon  their  heads  and  faces  loith  his  hands,  or  some  proper  in- 
strument, by  which  means  he  might  easily  baptize  many  thousands  in  a  day.  And 
this  way  of  pouring  water  upon  them  most  naturally  signified  Christ's  baptizing 
them  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  w^ith  fire,  which  John  spoke  of  as  prefigured  by 
his  baptizing  with  water,  (ver.  11,  Mark  i,  8,  Luke  iii,  16.  John  i,  33)  and 
which  was  eminently  fulfilled  when  the  Holy  Ghost  sat  in  the  appearance  of 
cloven  tongues  like  fire  ;  and  this  is  expressly  called  baptizing  them  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  opposition  to  John's  baptizing  with  water,  and  is  spoken  of  as  the 
Holy  Ghost  coming  upon  them,  and  as  God's  pouring  out  his  Spirit,  and  shedding 
him  forth  upon  them.  Acts  i,  5,  8,  &c.  And  with  a  direct  reference  hereunto, 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  Cornelius,  and  his  friends,  Peter  said,  "  Then  re- 
membered I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  [Acts  xi,  1%  16.]  The  Apostle 
Paul  likewise,  in  a  manifest  allusion  to  baptism,  speaks  of  God  saving  us  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly,  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour.  (Titus  iii,  5,  6,)  Now,  whether 
plunging  the  body  into  w-ater,  or  pouring  water  upon  it,  was  the  likeliest  emblem 
of  this  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  let  the  reader  judge  ;  especially  since  [Haptizo]  the 
word  constantly  used  for  baptizing,  signifies  a7iy  sort  nf  washing,  and  often 
sprinkling.'^ 

This  quotation  embraces  his  note  on  Math,  iii,  6,  which  he  paraphrases  thus  : 
•'  And  they  were  so  far  affected  with  his  doctrine,  that  they  made  a  public  pro- 
fession of  repentance,  and  were  baptized  by  him  in  the  river  Jordan,  both  he  and 
they  according  to  the  custom  of  the  country,  going  a  little  way  into  the  water, 
either  barefoot  or  with  sandals,  for  the  greater  convenience  and  expedition  in 
baptizing  them." 

It  is  often  asked,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  why  John  baptized  at  the  Jordan,  and 
Enon,  and  places  where  there  was  much  water,  if  he  did  not  immerse?  We  re- 
ply, that  he  chose  these  places  because  they  furnished  water  for  the  use  of  those 
who  went  out  from  all  Judea,  Jerusalem,  &c.  to  his  baptism.  The  term  Judea 
included  the  tribes  of  Judah,  Benjamin,  Simeon  and  Dan,  and  was  a  territory 
more  than  one  hundred  miles  in  length,  and  fifty  or  sixty  in  breadth.  Now,  as 
the  hearers  of  John  came  from  all  parts  of  Judea,  they  must  have  travelled  with 
mules,  asses,  and  horses,  and  as  it  must  be  supposed,  also,  that  they  stayed  sever- 
al days  to  hear  John's  preaching,  they  would  need  water  for  themselves  and  their 
beasts  of  burden.  Hence,  John  preached  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Jordan,  or  some 
other  place  where  water  was  plenty  for  the  accommodation  of  his  Iiearers,  oth- 
erwise they  could  not  have  gone  out  to  him,  as  water  was  not  abundant,  except 
near  streams. 


30 

Christ's  baptism  had  beon  mentioned  to  John,  in  these  words,  "  Rabbi,  he  that 
was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  behold  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  John  replies  that  this  should  be  so,  be- 
cause be  was  not  the  Christ,  but  merely  his  forerunner,  the  object  of  his  minis- 
try,  doctrine  and  baptism  being  to  point  hiati  out  to  the  people,  and  to  prepare 
them  to  receive  him.  Hence  his  authority  and  influence  among  the  people  must 
grow,  while  his  own  would  diminish.  Furthermore,  Jesus  must  supercede  him, 
because  he  was  his  superior  in  his  origin,  teaching,  and  particularly  in  the  influ- 
ences of  his  spirit,  which  were  not  conferred  on  him  in  a  small  degree  tf  lurpov. 
{eli-me-trou)  out  of  a  measure^  as  water  is  given  at  baptism. 

Now,  if  this  expression  alludes  to  baptism,  if  John  means  to  say  that  Christ 
had  received  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  fully  and  completely,  not  as  he  had  the 
water  of  baptism,  out  of  a  measure,  then  it  proves  incontestibly,  that  John  poured 
water  upon  Christ  in  his  baptism. 

This  agrees  with  those  ancient  pictures  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  some  of  which 
belong  to  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  which  are  still  e.xtant;  and  have  been 
collected  by  Mr.  Taylor.  Christ  is  represented  as  standing  in  the  river  Jordan, 
while  John,  from  a  position  on  the  bank  of  the  river,  pours  water  upon  his  head 
out  of  a  measure  of  some  kind,  as  in  the  following  cut.* 


Christus  door  Joannes  gedoopt. 
Translation. — Christ  baptized  by  John. 


*  "This  engraving,  or  cut,  is  taken  from  the  Dutch  Bible,  with  Annotations, 
prepared  by  the  direction  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  A.  D.  1618,  and  published  by 
authority,  A.  D.  1C37.  Tlie  copy  is  elegantly  bound  in  calf,  with  brass  edgings 
and  clasps,  and  was  printed  A.  D.  1711.     The  engraving   is   therefore  one  hun- 


31  ^ 

Mr.  Carson,  rcinarkiu^  on  the  word  arro,  {ajxi)  Matli.  iii,  IG,  says  [p.  20/1 
"  Since  apo  necessarily  implies  no  more  than  the  edge  as  the  point  of  depaiture; 
since  we  are  not  otherwise  informed  that  John  and  he  (Christ)  went  into  the 
water  previously  to  baptizing,  as  we  are  informed  in  respect  to  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch,  I  think  there  are  no  reasons  to  believe  that  John  the  Baptist  usually 
went  into  the  water  in  baptizing.  The  striking  difference  between  the  accounts 
of  these  two  baptisms,  leads  me  to  conclude  that  John  chose  some  place  on  the 
edge  of  the  Jordan  that  admitted  the  immersion  of  the  person  baptized,  while 
the  baptizer  remained  on  the  margin." 

There  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  the  three  three  thousand  baptized  by  the 
eleven  Apostles  in  a  small  part  of  one  day,  were  baptized  by  immersion.  The 
place  where  this  transaction  occurred,  was  Jerusalem,  a  city  which  was  located 
on  a  hill,  and  which  had  but  one  fountain  in  it ;  viz  ;  the  pool  of  Siloam,  situated 
in  its  south  east  corner.  The  brook  Kidron  ran  on  its  eastern  side,  without  the 
walls.  Now,  if  these  three  thousand  converts  were  immersed,  they  must  have 
been  immersed  either  in  the  brook  ^Kidron,  or  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,  or  in  the 
private  tanks,  cisterns,  or  baths  belonging  to  the  citzens. 

The  first  supposition  is  improbable,  because  "the  day  of  Pentecost  was 
about  the  twentieth  of  March,  when  it  was  summer  at  Jerusalem,  and  there  was 
no  rain,  and  the  brook  [Kidron  was  dry."  The  pool  of  Siloam  was  probably 
public  property,  and  was  under  the  control  of  the  civil  authorities  of  the  city,  and 
as  that  authority  was  hostile  to  the  Apostles,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that 
they  had  the  use  of  the  pool.  The  private  baths,  cisterns,  or  tanks,  belonged  to 
individuals,  and  many  of  them  would  have  been  necessary  to  baptize  so  large  a 
number  of  persons.  But  these  were  not  the  property  of  the  individuals  baptized, 
for  they  were  a  mixed  multitude  from  almost  every  section  of  the  world,  and 
were  strangers  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  Apostles  being  out  of  favor  with  the  civil 
and  eclesiastical  powers,  and  unpopular  with  the  chief  religious  sects  of  the  day, 
it  is  by  no  means  probable  that  they  could  have  secured  the  use  of  a  sufficient 
number  for  the  immersion  of  so  great  a  number  of  persons.  Add  to  this,  that  the 
converts  had  not  such  changes  of  raiment,  as  would  have  been  necessary  for  bap- 
tizing by  immersion,  and  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  they  were  baptized  in 
this  way  in  the  statement  of  the  Evangelists,  and  the  case  is  made  out  with  a 
good  degree  of  certainty,  that  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  in  some  other 
way  than  by  immersion. 

In  the  case  of  the  Jailor  and  his  family,  pouring  or  sprinkling  was  the  mode 
of  baptism  adopted.     Notice  the  facts.     Paul  and  Silas  were  thrust  into  the  in- 

dred  years  old.  It  shows  us  that  a  belief  prevailed  in  Holland,  one  hundred  years 
ago,  that  John  baptized  by  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  candidate,  who  stood 
in  the  water.  , 

Bishop  Hal],  one  of  the  English  Divines  who  took  part  in  the  deliberations  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  understood  Christ's  Baptism  to  have  been  administered  by 
pouring.  He  says,  "  No  sooner  is  Christ  baptized,  then  he  comes  forth  of  the 
water.  The  element  is  offeree  but  during  the  use  ;  it  turns  common  when  it  is 
past.  Neither  is  the  water  sooner  poured  on  his  head  than  the  Heavens  are  open- 
ed, and  the  Holy  Ghost  descendeth  on  that  head  which  was  baptised.^'— Bp.  Hall's 
Contemplations,  Christ's  Baptism. 


3:2 

her  prison,  the  inner  implying  an  outer  prison  through  wliich  they  passed  to  the 
inner.  The  Jailor  brought  them  not  out  of  the  prison,  but  out  of  the  inner  into 
the  onicr  prison.  In  the  oziter  prison,  therefore,  he  washed  their  stripes,  he  re- 
ceived the  word  preached  to  him,  and  his  household,  and  was  baptized,  he  and 
all  his,  the  same  liour  of  the  night  ;  a  portion  of  water  being  used  for  that  pur- 
pose which  he  liad'provided  to  wash  their  str'ipes.  Then  the  Jailor  brought  them 
into  his  dwelling-house,  and  gave  them  food  to  eat.  And  there  they  remained 
until  the  magistrates  had  granted  their  release  from  confinement. 

Paul  was  baptized  in  his  sick  chamber.  Acts  ix,  17, 18.  Annanias  went  in- 
to his  apartment,  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  and  immedialtely  he  received  his  sight, 
and  arasras  (an-os-tas)  standing  up,  was  baptized.  In  the  j^aralell  place.  Acts 
.\xii,  16,  Ananias  is  represented  as  saying,  "  And  now,  why  tarriest  thou  ? 
at'OiToi  panrisai  (an-as-tas-bap-ti-sai,)  Stand  vp.  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
thy  sins."  The  phraze,  "  wash  away  thy  sins,"  does  not  imply  an  immersjion, 
because  immersion  does  not  wash  av/ay  sins,  any  more  than  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing. The  expression  has  reference  solely  to  the  thing  signified  in  the  applica- 
tion of  water  in  baptism,  viz  :  the  cleansing  of  the  heart  from  sins  in  the  work  of 
regeneration. 

2.  The  validity  of  pouring,  or  aspersion,  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  attended  with  the  blessing  of  God,  and  answers  a  good  con- 
science. 

It  has  long  been  an  acknowledged  fact,  that  there  ia  as  much  piety,  benevo- 
lence, and  honest  zeal  for  pure  religion,  and  that  revivals  are  as  frequent  and 
precious  among  those  denominations  of  Christians  that  administer  baptism  by  the 
application  of  water,  as  those  that  plunge  under  the  water.  God  blesses  not  on- 
ly the  churches  which  administer  the  rite  of  baptism  in  this  way,  but  has  been 
pleased  particularly  to  distinguish  families  through  successive  generations  with 
many  tokens  of  his  favor,  that  have  adhered  strictly  to  sprinkling  as  a  mode  of 
baptism,  and  have  had  the  rite  administered  to  their  children.  Now,  we  ask, 
and  ask  with  emphasis,  would  God  connect  his  blessing  with  this  ordinance  as 
observed  by  non-immersionalists,  if  it  is  a  manifest  error  ?  Does  God  approve 
the  conduct  of  sinners  ?  Surely,  "the  just  Lord  will  not  do  iniquity,  every 
morning  doth  he  bring  his  judgment  to  light,  he  faileth  not." 

But,  if  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  is  essential  to  the  purity  of  the 
church,  and  the  peace  of  the  soul — if  it  is  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism,  aa 
Immersionalists  contend,  then  it  is  a  violation  of  a  divine  institution  to  practice 
differently^;  and  it  is  consequently  to  commit  sin  to  sprinkle  a  man  and  call  it 
baptism.  Nor  do  they  who  pursue  this  practice,  sin  ignorantly,  or  blindly. 
This  is  impossible,  since  the  zeal  of  the  Immersionalists  breaks  in  upon  their  ig- 
norance from  every  quarter,  and  must  open  their  eyes  to  their  sin,  if  they  are 
guilty  of  any  transgression  in  this  matter.  Hence,  they  cannot  be  ignorant, 
or  blind';  but  they  sin  with  a  full  knowledge  oftheir  guilt,  and  are  entirely  with- 
out excuse.  And  yet,  the  gracious  Lord  who  hatelh  iniquity,  and  will  not  look 
upon  sin  with  any  allowance,  withholds  not  the  gifts  of  his  grace,  and  the  tokens 
of  his  favor  from  those  who  allowedly,  and  with  a  full  understanding  of  their 


Ivrono'-doino-,  violate  a  positive  divine  institution.  Yes,  his  blessing  rests  of. 
them  as  uninterru^fcdly,  and  Iiis  divine  bounty  towards  them  is  as  full,  as  rich 
andfrce,  as  those  who  practice  only  immersion.  How  is  this  singular  proceed- 
ing on  the  part  of  God,  to  be  accounted  for,  if  the  mode  of  baptism  they  practice 
meets  not  his  approbation.  If  it  is  such  an  error  as  the  Immcrsionalista  contend, 
it  is  an  offence  to  him,  and  he  would  shew,  in  some  way  sufficiently  marked  not 
to  mistake  it,  his  disapprobationof  their  practice. 

But,  not  only  is  there  no  mark  of  the  divine  disapprobation  set  to  it,  they  are 
not  even  made  sensible  by  any  convictions  of  conscience  of  any  thing  wrong  in 
their  practice.  And  herein  is  a  marvellous  thing.  For  they  are,  in  the  judge- 
mcnt  of  charity,  at  least,  true  followers  cf  God;  they  profess  to  be  attached  to 
his  truth,  and  to  be  wiUing  to  obey  him  in  all  his  ordinances  in  the  exact  way 
required  in  his  word  ;  and  as  probationers  for  eternity,  have  just  as  much  at 
stake,  and  are  just  as  much  concerned  to  know  the  truth,  and  pursue  a  right 
practice,  as  others  ;  and  yet,  on  the  subject  of  a  wrong  practice  in  administering 
an  important  ordinance,  their  minds  are  suffered  to  remain  undisturbed,  and  their 
conscience  is  satisfied.  It  must  be  that  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  the  admistra- 
tion  of  baptism  by  the  application  of  water  to  the  subject,  since  there  is  noth- 
ing in  it  to  offend  conscience. 

And  why  should  not  such^a  mode  of  baptism  seem  right  in  the  eyes  of  good 
men  *  "  The  ordinance  of  baptism  properly  consists  in  tlie  application  of  water, 
as  the  emblem  of  the  purifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  significance 
and  appropriateness  of  the  rite,  arises  from  the  cleansing  nature  of  the  element 
employed,  and  not  from  the  mode  of  its  application."'  Of  course,  the  application 
of  water  in  baptism,  is  just  as  proper  as  immersion  under  water,  as  it  expresses 
the  thing  signified,  and  immersion  does  no  more.  Nay,  it  is  not  so  expressive 
as  pouring,  or  sprmkling,  because  they  [resemble  the  mode  of  baptism  by  the 
Spirit  by  which  this  purifying  work  is  effected,  which  is  by  a  fallin*,  or  shed- 
ding down  of  the  divine  influence  on  the  soul.  Of  course,  the  application  of 
water  in  baptism,  it  must  be  conceded  may  seem  right. 

'  But,  it  is  not,  after  all,  the  quantity  of  water  used,  but  the  mode  of  applying  it, 
which  is  the  turning  point  in  this  controversy.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence, 
if  a  man  is  immersed  all  over  in  water,  whether  he  is  dipped  in  the  ocean,  or  in 
a  tea  cup;  if  that  could  be  done,  the  Immersionalists  would  pronounce 
his  baptism  valid.  It  destroys  the  validity  of  baptism,  in  their  view  of  it, 
to  cause  the  baptismal  element  to  descend  on  the  subject,  even  if  the  North  Riv- 
er itself  could  be  poured  upon  his  person.  This  illustration  shews  the  true 
ground  of  dispute  ;  it  is  not  the  quantity  of  water  employed,  it  is  not  the  thing 
signified,  but  it  is  the  mode  of  applying  the  baptismal  element.  How  small  a 
mattsr  to  make  the  subject  of  an  interminable  controversy  in  the  Christian 
Church.  How  gladly  would  we  drop  it,  if  the  Immersionalists  would  be  con- 
tented with  immersion,  and  allow  us  to  enjoy  our  own  opinions,  and  adhere  to 
our  own  practice  unmolested. 

But,  they  seem  to  imagine  that  they  have  received  more  light  on  this  subject 
than  we  have,  and  that  it  is  their  duty  to  warn  ue,  as  if  wc  were  persisting  in 

5 


34 

aome  great  and  fatal  error.  We  have,  however,  supposed  that  we  were  efthgbt-> 
ened,  and  that  we  could  not  be  walking  in  darkness  while  ■Mue  were  following 
the  instructions  of  Witsius,Turretin,  Owen,  Manton,  Howe,  Edwards,  Luthen 
Calvin,  Beza,  and  a  host  of  other  learned  and  distinguished  men.  That  these 
men  possessed  extensive  information,  eminent  piety,  great  tenderness  of  con- 
science,  and  great  zeal  for  a  pure  Christianity,  has  never  been  denied,  even  by 
those  who  have  rejected  their  views  on  the  subject  of  baptism  ;  and  that  they 
had  as  much  at  stake,  and  were  as  much  concerned  to  know  the  truth,  as  the 
Immersionalists,  no  one  can  doubt.  That  they  may  have  erred  sometimes,  we 
do  not  pretend  to  deny — but  that  they  have  fallen  into  any  mistake  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  then  in  moments  of  serious  reflection,  even  until  their  death,  have  de= 
liberately  persisted  in  their  errors,  we  are  not  credulous  enough  to  believe.  Now, 
we  have  not  taken  their  assertions  for  granted,  nor  settled  down  in  the  belief 
that  their  decisions  are  to  be  received  without  examination.  We  have  examin- 
ed them  as  the  opinions  of  men  liable  to  err,  but  our  examination  has  settled  in  a 
firm  conviction  that  their  conclusions  are  correct,  are  sustained  by  sound  learn- 
ing,  sound  criticism,  and  a  right  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

We,  therefore,  assure  our  Immersionalist  friends  that  we  feel  quite  as  certain 
that  ours  is  the  Christian  way  of  baptism,  as  they  do  that  it  is  Anti-Scriptural 
and  untenable,  and  that  we  as  truly  believe  that  we  are  setting  forward  the  cause 
of  pure  Christianity  by  its  observance  as  they  flatter  themselves  they  are  by 
resisting  it.  We  have  read  their  arguments  with  attention,  we  have  weighed 
the  evidence  which  convinces  them  that  they  are  exactly  right,  and  that  all  are 
wrong  who  do  not  sympathize  with  them,  but  we  have  not  yet  been  enabled  to 
see  things  in  their  light.  An  exclusive  mode  of  baptism  as  being  essential  to 
its  validity  we  deny,  a  proscriptive  one  we  abhor.  Much  as  we  detest  controver- 
sy, yet  one  sentiment  ^unless  our  mental  and  moral  natures  should  undergo  an 
entire  change,  tantamount  to  a  reconstruction)  we  will  resist  as  long  as  we  have 
a  being,  viz  :  that  immersion  is  essential  to  sound  Christian  principle,  true  piety 
and  meetness  for  Heaven,  and  that  Churches  have  a  right  to  make  it  a  term  of 
communion  even  to  the  exclusion  of  those  from  the  Lord's  Table  who  give 
satisfactory  evidence  of  piety  and  agreement  in  Christian  doctrines. 


# 


SERMON  III. 


MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

JuDE  i,  3. — •'Beloved — it  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you,  and  exhort 
you  tJiat  ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  un-? 
to  the  saints." 

The  term  faith  in  this  passage  has  reference  to  the  whole  of  evangelical  truth, 
"  Earnestly  to  contend"  means  to  be  solicitous  not  only  to  hold,  profess  and  adorn 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  but  to  maintain  and  resolutely  defend  it  with  argu- 
ments. The  text,  therefore  inculcates  religious  controversy.  It  requires  Chris- 
tian?, particularly  ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  vindicate  the  faith  once  deliverd  to 
the  saints,  and  to  exert  every  power  and  talent  with  which  God  haa  blessed 
them  to  counteract  the  efforts  of  those  who  l^bor  to  impugn,  or  set  aside  the 
doctrines  revealed  in  the  Gospel. 

However  painful  controversy  in  itself  may  be,  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to 
check  the  boldness  of  false  teachers  who  labor  to  bring  in  damnable  heresies' 
and  who  would  destroy  the  truth  itself,  if  they  were  not  resisted,  It  ia  necessa- 
ry to  confirm  Christians  in  the  faith,  and  render  them  able  to  give  every  man  a 
■reason  for  their  belief,  with  meekness  and  fear.  It  is  essential,  also,  to  repress 
in  some  whom  we  believe  to  be  the  followers  of  Christ  in  other  respects,  a  prone- 
ncss  to  the  form,  or  shadow,  rather  than  to  the  substance  of  true  religion,  to  the 
tithing  of  mint,  annise  and  cummin,  omitting  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law, 
judgement,  mercy  and  faith.  When  any  body  of  professing  Christians  set  up 
the  observance  of  an  ordinance  in  a  particular  way,  as  of  paramount  value,  and 
make  it  essential  to  communion  and  the  rights  of  church  fellowship  ;  when  on 
this  ground  they  give  all  the  privileges  of  a  Church  to  a  particular  party,  exclu- 
ding those  from  the  table  of  the  Lord  (which  is  intended  to  be  free  for  all  who 
love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ)  whom  he  would  admit,  and  admitting  those  whom 
he  would  exclude,  they  arrogate  to  themselves  a  right  which  is  not  granted  to 
them,  and  are  guilty  of  an' offence  which  should  be  rebuked.  For  they  in  effect 
say  to  all  who  are  out  of  their  limits,  if  you  will  not  take  Christianity  on  the  terms 
we  propose,  by  observing  an  ordinance  as  we  observe  it,  "  you  shall  not  beChris_ 
tians,  you  shall  have  no  Christian  ordinances,  no  Christian  worship  ;  we  will,  as 
far  as  in  us  is,  exclude  you  from  Heaven  itself,  and  all  means  of  salvation." 

This  is  violating  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  introducing  an- 
other in  its  place.  The  Church  is  a  Spiritual  society — the  great  things  of  re- 
ligion are  Spiritual  tilings,  such  as  repentance,  faith,  love  and  holiness;  not  or- 
dinances, or  certain  modes  of  observing  ordinances.    Christianity  itscifj  then,  is 


ihc  term,  or  GOiuliuon  of  the  communion  of  Chri3tian3  ;  all^^whom  the  Lord  hat 
received,  are  entitled  to  the  Lord's  table. 

These  principles  must  be  maintained,  and  those  who  presume  to  violate,  or  set 
them  aside,  must  be  resisted.  There  is  no  error  in  contending  for  right  views 
in  relii'-ion,  if  we  cherish  a  spirit  of  kindness  towards  those  with  whom  we  differ. 
The  danger  arising  from  religious  controversies,  consists  in  laying  aside  in  the 
heat  of  debate,  the  meekness,  candor  and  benevolence  which  the  Gospel  requires, 
and  attempting  to  obtain  the  victory  over  an  opponent  by  other  means  than  the 
force  of  truth,  the  power  of  persuasion,  and  the  melting  tenderness  of  love. 
Sensible  of  our  danger,  and  praying  that  we  may  manifest  no  other  feelings  in 
this  discourse  than  those  which  God  approves,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  reply  to 
the  arguments  which  the  Immersionalists  urge  in  defence  of  the  mode  of  baptism 
to  which  they  are  partial. 

They  reason,  in  the  first  place,  from  the  import  of  the  prepositions  «■,  [gn]ar,[eis] 
CK,  &  a-:To,[ek  <^  apo]  which  are  rendered  in  our  English  version,  or  translation, 
in,  into  and  out  of.  These  prepositions,  they  say,  are  joined  with  the  word  bap. 
tize,  so  as  to  shew  that  it  was  by  dipping,  or  immersing,  that  baptism  was  admin- 
istered. 

These  prepositions  are  used  in  the  following  instances  in  connection  with  the 
word  laptize,  where  the  allusion  is  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  Math.  iii.  6,  16 
Mark  i.  5.  9, 10.  Acts  viii.  38.  In  every  case  they  are  connected  with  John's 
baptism,^except  the  last,  which  properly  comes  under  the  head  of  Apostolic,  or 
Christian  baptism.  We  will  take  into  consideration  first,  those  which  belong 
to  John's  baptism.  It  may  be  remarked,  however,  in  general,  respecting  these 
prepositions,  that  they  are  more  frequently  translated  at,  to  and  from,  in  the  New 
Testament,  than  into  and  out  of. 

Now,  if  we  admit  that  the  prepositions  [en,  eis  and  apo]  rendered  in,  into  and 
omZ  of,  imply  that  our  Saviour,  and  those  Avho  received  baptism  at  the  hand  of 
John,  actually  went  into  the  river  Jordan,  yet  their  immersion  still  remains  to  b  e 
proved.  In  and  into,  do  not  mean  under.  Out  'of,  does  not  mean  to  come  up 
from  under.  The  utmost  that  can  bo  proved  by  these  terms  is,  that  Jesus  and 
those  persons  who  were  baptized  by  John,  entered  the  water,  up  to  the  waist, 
knee  deep,  or  ankle  deep.  If  they  stood  in  the  water  only  ankle  deep,  they  were 
in  the  river,  and  they  might  be  said,  with  propriety,  to  have  been  baptized  in  the 
Jordan,  and  to  have  come  up  out  of  the  water  after  their  baptism,  if  they  had 
been  baptized  by  pouring,  or  sprinkling. 

Is  it  said  the  most  natural  supposition  is,  that  they  went  into  the  water  in  or- 
der to  be  immersed.  An  Iramersionalist,  whose  prejudices  lean  toward  immer- 
sion, may  naturally  suppose  so.  A  non-immersionalist,  whose  prejudices  favor 
sprinkling,  or  pouring,  may  naturally  suppose  the  contrary.  Here  are  two  con- 
traiy  suppositions,  and  one  as  good  as  the  other,  and  both  good  for  nothing,  since 
naked  suppositions  are  not  arguments. 

Is  it  said,  the  fact  that  they  were  baptized  in  water,  proves  they  were  immer- 


38 

6€d.  But  it  is  said  in  eight  instances,  that  they  were  baptized  with  water,  an  ex- 
pression which  implies  that  water  was  applied  to  their  persons  by  pouring,  or 
sprinkling,  as  Dr.  Gill  admits  (see  p  29)  and  which  is  Bubstantially  admitted  by 
the  Immersionalists,  in  their  having  made  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 

Why  have  they  judged  such  a  translation  necessary,  except  on  the  ground  that 
readers  of  the  old  translation  understand  baptizing  with  water  to  "  favor  pouring, 
or  sprinkling  water  upon,  or  application  of  it  to  the  person  baptized,  in  opposition 
£0  immersion  in  it."  Putting  the  two  expressions  together.  John  is  represented 
as  having  applied  the  element  of  baptism  to  those  whom  he  baptized,  by  pouring, 
or  sprinkling,  and  they  as  having  received  it  standing  in  the  Jordan. 

Is  it  said,  finally,  that  the  word  baptize  means  to  immerse.  Admitting  that  it 
does,  that  does  not  prove  that  it  means  so  when  applied  to  John's  baptism.  For, 
we  have  proved  that  it  means  to  wash,  to  purify,  and  to  sprinkle.  We  have  prov- 
ed from  ancient  Greek  authors,  that  it  means  wading  in  the  water  up.to  the  mid- 
dle. Hence,  if  those  whom  John  baptized,  stood  in  the  Jordan  up  to  their  loaist, 
they  were  baptized. 

But,  we  are  not  left  in  suspense  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  John's  baptism. 
It  was  a  purification.  John  iii,  22, 26.  Let  the  occasion  of  the  dispute  about  pu- 
rifying between  the  Jews,  and  John's  disciples,  viz  :  the  concurrence  of  two  ri- 
val baptisms,  and  the  reference  of  it  to  John,  as  a  question  about  baptism  be  con- 
eidered,  and  no  man  of  calm  and  unbiassed  judgement  can  hesitate  to  admit,  that 
the  Spirit  of  inspiration  has  taught  us  that  John's  baptism  was  a  purification. 

But,  it  may  be  said  John  purified  by  immersion  1  That  does  not  follow,  for 
pouring  and  aspersion  were  modes  of  purification  under  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation, *  and  John  baptized  under  that  dispensation,  as  we  shall  shew  in  the 
sequel.    Hence,  he  purified  by  pouring,  or  sprinkling. 

This  view  of  his  baptism,  however,  is  sustained  by  the  baptism  of  Christ. 
John  baptized  Jesus  in  order  to  manifest  him  to  Israel  in  his  Priestly  Office 
and  character.  Two  considerations  prove  this  ;  one  is,  that  immediately  after 
his  baptism,  he  assumed  the  office  of  a  teacher.  He  returned  to  Nazareth,  went 
into  the  Synagogue  on  the  Sabbath,  read  a  portion  of  Scripture,  and  expounded 
it  as  having  reference  to  himself.  (Luke  iv,  16,  27.)  The  other  is  that  he  ack- 
nowledged that  he  was  baptized  for  the  priestly  office.  When  his  authority  for 
teaching  in  the  temple  was  demanded  by  the  Chief  Priests  and  elders  of  the  peo- 
ple, he  immediately  referred  tliem  to  the  baptism  of  John,  and  asked  them  wheth- 


*  Calmet  says  '•  ritual  baptism  was  performed  by  aspersion,  or  such  lustration 
as  included  no  more  than  the  reception  of  some  lustral  blood  and  water  scattered 
slightly  on  the  person;  as,  when  Moses  consecrated  the  priests  and  altar ;  (Ex. 
xxix,  21,)  when  the  Tabernacle  v/as  sprinkled  with  blood,  on  the  day  of  solemn 
expiation  ;  (Lev.  viii,  11,)  or  when  the  sacrifice  was  offered  by  him  for  the  sins 
of  the  high  priest  and  the  multitude,  (Lev.  xvi,  14,  1.5,)  and  he  wetted  the  horns 
of  the  altar  with  the  blood  of  the  victim.  When  a  leper  was  purified  after  his  cure, 
or  when  a  man  was  polluted  by  touching  or  by  meeting  a  dead  body,  they  light- 
ly sprinkled  puch  persons  with  lustra!  water."     (Numb.  xix.  1.3.  18.  20.) 


39 

er  it  was  from  Heaven  or  men  1  They  knew  that  he  had  been  baptized  of  John  ,^ 
and  if  hi3  baptism  was  of  man,  then,  of  course,  he  could  have  no  authority  to 
preach.  But  if  it  was  from  Heaven,  then  his  authority  was  established.  For* 
he  was  there  actually  invested  with  the  office  of  the  priesthood,  by  the  washing 
of  water,  and  the  annointing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  descended  upon  him  in  the 
form  of  a  dove.     (Acts  x,  37,  38.) 

The  high  priest  when  inducted  into  his  office  was  purified  by  an  ablution  or 
washing  in  water.  It  was  performed  at  a  laver  of  brass  which  was  put  between 
the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  and  the  Altar ;  Exodus  xxx.,  17 — 21.  This 
ablution  was  a  perpetual  ordinance  to  be  observed  by  the  successors  of  Aaron 
in  the  priesthood  as  long  as  the  priesthood  lasted,  his  successors  being  his  pos- 
terity for  it  was  ordained  that  the  high  priest  should  be  chosen  from  the  family 
of  Aaron. 

In  Exodus  xi.,  30 — 32,  we  read,  "And  he  (Moses)  set  the  laver  between  the 
tent  of  the  congregation  and  the  altar,  and  put  water  there,  to  wash  withal. 
And  Moses  and  Aaron  and  his  sons  washed  their  hands  and  their  feet  thereat : 
when  they  went  into  the  tent  of  the  congregation,  and  when  they  came  near  the 
altar,  they  washed  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moaes." 

Beside  this  washing  with  water  the  priest  was  annointed  with  oil.  See  Ex 
sxix.,  7,  xxx.  23,  Lev.  viii,  12. 

But  did  not  the  persons  consecrated  to  the  office  of  Priest  wash  their  feet  and 
hands  in  the  Laver  of  brass  by  immersion  1  No,  says  Dr.  Gill,  "  Not  in  it,  but 
at  it ;  the  laver  had  mouths,  or  spouts,  as  Ben  Melech  says,  from  whence  the 
water  flowed  when  the  Priests  washed  their  hands  and  feet  at  it ;  and  so  Bar- 
tenora  says,  they  did  not  wash  out  of  the  laver,  but  from  water  flowing  out  of  it ; 
it  is  said  out  of  it,  not  in  it." 

Now,  ag  our  biassed  Lord  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  that  is,  obeyed  the  Le- 
vitical  law,  it  became  necessary  for  him  when  he  took  upon  himself  the  office  of 
High  Priest,  to  purify  himself  by  an  ablution.  Hence,  he  came  to  John  for  bap- 
tism. If  his  baptism,  then,  had  any  resemblance  to  the  ablution  of  the  High 
Priest,  John  poured  water  upon  his  person. 

The  great  reputation,  popularity  and  universal  estimation  in  which  the  char- 
acter and  baptism  of  John  was  held  by  all  the  people,  not  excluding  the  religioua 
sects  of  the  Jews,  shews  however  most  conclusively,  that  John's  baptism  was 
not  a  departure  from  the  purifications  of  the  Mosaic  ritual.  John  was  a  member  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  through  his  ministry  until  his  death.  He  was  not  accused 
of  schism,  or  of  any  attempt  to  alter  the  forms  of  religion.  He  attempted  no  in- 
novation upon  existing  usages.  He  was  generally  held  in  great  veneration', 
and  most  of  the  people,  not  excepting  the  religious  sects,  submitted  to  his  bap- 
tism. 

Now,  the  Pharasees  placed  much  of  their  religion  in  observing  the  Mosaical 
ritual,  and  they  were  greatly  opposed  to  innovations  of  every  sort  in  religion. — 
If  John  had  introduced  any  thing  new  in  hia  baptism,  or  contrary  to  the  purifies' 


I 


40 

tions  they  had  been  accustomed  to,  he  must  have  displeased  these  watchful  guar- 
dians of  the  Mosaical  institutions,  and  involved  himself  in  fierce  and  interminable 
altercations  with  them. 

But  he  gave  them  no  offence,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  popular  among  thern. 
His  severest  reproofs  of  their  sins  did  not  excite  their  displeasure.  They  did 
not  reject  his  baptism,  but  came  to  it.  These  remarkable  facts  shew  beyond  the 
possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  John  must  have  observed  in  his  mode  of  baptism, 
some  approved  form  of  purification  in  use  among  the  Jews.  On  any  other  sup- 
position they  are  entirely  inexplicable. 

But  if  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  John  immersed  those  who  came  to  his  bap- 
tism, it  would  have  no  weight  in  settling  the  mode  of  christian  baptism,  for 
John's  baptism  belonged  to  the  old  Testament  dispensation,  and  was  not  Chris- 
tian baptism.  This  position  is  strongly  contested  by  the  Immersionalists,  but  it 
is  evidently  inconlrovertable,  as  the  following  considerations  prove. 

1.  John  did  not  baptize  in  the  n^me  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Son.  It  is 
said  (John  vii,  39,)  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  that  the  disciples  of 
John  knew  nothing  about  the  Holy  GhOiSt,  (Acts  xix,  6,  7,)  and  John  says  him- 
self that  the  Holy  Ghost,  (Math,  iii,)  was  not  connected  with  his  baptism. 

F'  If  he  had  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  there  could  have  been  no  doubt  ex= 
pressed  by  the  Jews  (Luke  iii,  15,)  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not,  nor  any 
occasion  for  the  question  (John  i,  25,)  why  baptizeth  thou,  if  thou  be  not  the 
Christ  ?  If  John  had  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  he  could  not  have  admon- 
ished those  he  baptized  to  believe  on  him  which  should  come  after  him,  (viz, 
Christ,)  nor  would  Paul  have  baptized  (Acts  xix,  5,)  some  of  John's  disciples  in 
the  name  of  Jesus.  Why  were  these  persons  re-baptized  if  they  had  already 
been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  sacred  Three,  and  had  received  christian  bap- 
tism? 

2.  John  did  not  receive  his  baptism  from  Christ.  He  bapti^red  some  time  be- 
fore he  knew  Christ ;  he  says  that  he  knew  him  not,  and  that  he  received  hia 
commission  from  another,  (John  i,  33)  viz  :  the  Father.  Now,  Christian  bap- 
tism originated  wtih  Christ ;  his  disciples  baptized  by  his  authority  and  commis- 
sion. (Math,  xxviii,  19.)  If  John's  baptism,  therefore,  had  been  Christian  bap- 
tism, Christ  would  not  have  issued  another  command  to  baptize  after  his  crucifix- 
ion.   It  would  have  been  unnecessary. 

3.  The  particular  object  of  John's  baptism,  shews  that  it  was  not  Christian 
baptism.  John  says  (John  i,  31)  that  he  came  baptizing  with  water  in  order  to 
manifest  Christ  unto  Israel,  and  that  he  baptized  the  people  with  water  unto  re- 
pentance, "  saying  unto  them  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  Christ  Jesus."  John's  baptism,  then,  had  a  two-fold  object. 
One  was  to  consecrate  Christ  by  water  baptism  to  the  office  of  the  high  priest, 
that  in  this  character  he  might  appear  to  the  people,  and  the  other  was  to  prepare 
the  people  to  receive  him  when  he  should  manifest  himself  to  Israel.  He  bap- 
Jized,  then,  not  upon  their  repentance,  but  unto  repentance^  that  is,  in  order  to  rc' 


41 

pentancc,  for  the  specific  purpose  of  confessing  their  sins  and  tuminjf  from  their 
wickedness  to  meet  the  Lord.  Hence,  those  who  received  his  baptism,  are  said 
in  the  act  of  baptism  (not  before)  to  have  confessed  their  sins.  (Math,  iii,  6.) 
He  baptized  those  who  cams  to  his  baptism  not  upon  their  faith,  but  on  condition 
that  they  should  believe  in  him  who  should  come  after  him,  i.  e.  on  Christ  Jesus. 

Now,  Christian  baptism  requires  of  adults  repentance  and  faith  as  pre-requi- 
sites  of' baptism.  It  is  not  preparatory  to  repentance  and  faith  ;  but  faith  and 
repentance  arc  preparatory  to  baptism  in  the  case  of  adult  persons.  John's 
baptism,  therefore,  was  not  Christian  baptism  in  the  sense  it  is  understood  by 
Immcrsionalists;  and,  con.sequently,  if  they  contend  that  John's  was  Christian 
baptism,  they  give  up  one  of  their  strongholds,  viz  :  that  faith  and  repentanco 
precede  baptism,  and  they  virtually  admit  that  baptism  unto  repentance  and  faith, 
as  administered  to  infants,  is  valid.* 

4.  The  multitudes  who  submitted  to  John'a  baptism,  including  Sectarians  and 
men  of  all  parties  in  religion,  even  those  who  had  imbibed  false  doctrines  as  the 
Saducees,  and  the  restriction  of  his  baptism  entirely  to  the  Jewish  nation,  fur* 
nish  evidence  that  his  baptism  was  distinct  from  that  instituted  by  Christ  after 
his  Crucifixion. 

Christian  baptism  is  designed  for  all  nations,  while  John  confined  his  baptism 
entirely  to  the  Jews.  Adults  who  give  evidence  of  faith  and  repentance  are 
entitled  to  Christian  baptism.  All  other  adults  who  have  not  confessed  their 
Bins,  and  acknowledged  their  reliance  on  Christ  for  salvation,  are  excluded,  So 
are  all  heretics  and  errorists. 

But  John  admitted  all  persons  v/ithotit  any  reference  to  character,  rank,  sect^ 
or  party,  to  his  baptism,  not  excluding  even  the  proud  and  haughty  Pharasee?, 
and  infidel  Saducees  who  were  enemies  to  Christ,  and  whom  he  himself  calls  a. 
generation  of  vipers.  Luke  says,  [chap,  vii,  30]  "  the  Pharasees  and  Lawyers 
rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  being  not  baptized  of  John,"  but 
this  is  not  said  of  the  Saducees,  nor  can  it  be  intended  to  mean  all  the  Phara. 
sees.  For  Matthew  (chap,  iii,  7)  declares  that  many  of  the  Pharasees  came  to 
his  baptism,  and  he  represents  John  as  saying  to  them  "  f  indeed  baptize  you 
(i.  e.  Piiarasees)  with  water,  unto  repentance."  It  appears  that  while  some  of 
the  Pharasees  did  not  receive  the  baptism  of  John,  ma7iy  of  that  sect  did. 

Finally.  John's  baptism  belonged  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  This 
dispensation  was  not  virtually  abolished  until  the  death  of  Christ.  John  and 
Christ  were  members  of  the  .Jewish  Church,  and  conformed  to  the  institutions  of 
that  religion ;  a  new  order  of  things  was  not  introduced  until  the  death  of 
Christ,  all  was  preparatory  up  to  that  event.  When  Christ  died,  "  he  blotted 
out  the  hand-writing  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  contrary  to 
us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross." 

*  It  is  no  objection  to  this  that  is  said  "  John  preached  the  baptism  ot  repent- 
ance for  the  remission  of  sins,"  (Mark  i,  4).  The  idea  is,  that  the  baptism  he 
preacl^d  imposed  repeniance  on  those  who  received  it,  in  order  that  they  might 
receive  the  remission  of  sins. 

6 


42 

The  meaning  of  which  is,  "  that  the  ceremonial  law  which  waa  against  and 
contrary  to  the  Gentiles,  as  being  a  middle  wall  of  partition  hindering  them  from 
coming  to  God,  and  putting  an  enmity  between  them  and  God's  people,  Christ 
took  away  by  his  death  on  the  cross,  dissolving  and  abolishing  its  obligation,  and 
admitting  the  Gentiles  fellow  heirs  of  the  same  promises  and  blessings  with  the 
Jews."  The  ceremonial  law,  therefore,  continued  in  full  force  until  Christ's 
death,  and  John's  baptism  must  have  been  administered  in  conformity  with  the 
requirements  of  that  law,  and  consequently  it  must  have  been  a  ritual  purifica- 
tion and  not  a  Christian  ordinance.  * 

Having  now  proved  that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  and  con- 
sequently that  the  expressions  in,  into  and  out  of,  when  applied  to  his  baptism 
have  no  bearing  upon  the  question  respecting  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  let 
us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  Acts  viii,  38,  in  which 
passage  the  prepositions  eis  and  eh,  are  translated  into  and  out  of.  "  And  he 
commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still,  and  they  both  went  down  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come 
up  out  of  the  water,"  &c. 

We  offer  the  following  remarks  on  this  passage.  If  the  expressions  into  and 
out  of  denote  immersion  then  Philip  was  immersed  as  well  as  the  Eunuch,  "  for 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  down  into  the  water,  and  came  up  out  of  the 
water."  One  went  in  as  deep  as  the  other,  and  if  one  went  under  the  water, 
both  went  under.  But  this  is  not  all.  If  they  both  went  under  the  water,  when 
they  went  into  the  water,  then  it  follows  that  while  both  were  under  the  water 
Philip  immersed  the  Eunuch,  if  the  word  baptize  means  to  immerse.  It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  into  and  out  of,  do  not  in  this  case  imply  immersion.  Nor 
is  there  a  particle  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  Eunuch  was  baptized  by  imraer- 
Bion,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  the  word  baptize  means  to  immerse  in  every 
case.  If  that  can  be  done,  then  it  means  to  immerse  in  this  case  and  the  matter 
is  settled.  But  that  cannot  be  done.  Hence,  no  one  can  show  that  Philip  bap- 
tized the  Eunuch  by  immersion. 

But  is  this  doing  justice  to  the  passage  1  Is  not^the  form  of  expression  such 
and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  of  such  a  character,  as  plainly  to  shew  that 
the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  was  administered  by  immersion  1 

We  unhesitatingly  answer  in  the  negative.  Notice  the  facts  in  the  case. 
This  baptism  took  place  in  the  <?eser/,  Acts  viii,  26.  The  term  desert  was  not 
often  used  by  the  Jews  to  "denote  simply  a  country  in  its  natural  state,  but  a  sandy 
barren  waste,  almost  entirely  ^destitute  of  water  and  herbage.  If  the  desert 
through  which  the  Eunuch  was  travelling,  was  a  sandy  region,  it  is  probable  that 
water  was  not  to  be  found  on  the  route  he  was  pursuing  in  a  large  quantity.  Fur- 

*  (Mark  i,  1^  calls  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  the  beginning  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  But  he  simply  refers  to  John  as  the  fore- 
runner of  Christ,  for  he  quotes  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  in  the  second  verse,  which 
pointed  him  out  in  that  character :  "  Behold  I  send  ihy  messenger  before  thy 
face,"  &c.  He  means  by  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  therefore,  the  preparatO' 
ry  work  of  the  Gospel  accomplished  by  John  the  Baptist. 


«- 


43 

thermore,  it  is  not  said  that  they  came  to  a  stream  of  water,  but  to  a  certain 
water,  which  may  denote  only  a  fountain  of  water  used  for  a  watering  place. 
Fountains  or  springs  of  water  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia  and  Palestine,  it  is  well 
known  generally  are  not  deep  or  large  enough  to  immerse  a  person  in,  nor  are 
they  ever  used  for  such  a  purpose,  but  in  order  to  give  drink  to  the  weary  and 
thirsty  traveller. 

The  prepositions  eis  and  ek  here  do  not  necessarily  mean  into  and  out  of,  but 
may  be  rendered  without  violating  the  Laws  of  Grammar,  injuring  the  harmony 
or  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  to  and /rom,  [as  they  are  elsewhere  rendered  in 
numerous  instances  in  the  New  Testament. 

There  are  several  cousiderations  which  shew  that  «o  and  from  is  the  proper 
rendering.  One  is  the  subject  of  the  Eunuch's  meditations  when  Philip  fell  into 
his  company.  He  was  reading  the  passage  in  Isaiah  Liii,  7,  which  he  did  not 
understand.  Philip  explained  it  as  a  prophecy  concering  Christ,  and  unques- 
tionably went  over  the  whole  from  the  beginning,  Chap.  Lii,  IS,  for  "  here  says 
Dr.  Gill,  properly  a  new  chapter  should  begin,  these  three  last  verses  treating 
of  the  same  person  and  subject  as  the  following  chapter  ;  even  of  Christ,  his 
person,  offices,  humiliation  and  exaltation,  and  the  effects  and  fruits  thereof;  for 
of  him  undoubtedly  the  whole  is  to  be  understood,  Philip,  therefore,  expounded 
in  "  preaching  Christ  to  the  Eunuch"  these  remarkable  words,  vs.  15,  "  So  shall 
he  sprinkle  many  nations  ;"  and  appears  to  have  explained  them  as  having  re- 
ference to  water  baptism. 

For  the  Eunuch  must  have  received  instruction  from  Philip  on  this  subject, 
otherwise  we  cannot  account  for  his  exclamation  when  they  accidentally  came 
to  water,  "  See  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized."  Some  con- 
versation on  the  subject  of  baptism  must  have  passed  previously  between  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch,  and  what  passage  in  the  whole  prophecy  could  have  occasioned 
such  a  conversation  but  that  contained  in  the  l5th  verse.  "  In  the  absence  of 
all  proof  to  the  contrary,  it  is  right  to  presume  that  the  Eunuch  was  baptized  by 
sprinkling,"  which  is  the  mode  in  the  prophecy.  ''  To  represent  this  mode  of 
baptism  the  words  of  course  should  be  read  and  they  went  down  to  the  water, 
and  came  up  from  the  water." 

Another  circumstance  which  militates  against  immersion  In  this  case,  is  the 
remark  of  the  sacred  penman  that  immediately  after  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  and  the  '« Eunuch  went  on  his  way 
rejoicing."  This  implies  that  he  proceeded  on  his  journey  without  any  change 
of  apparel.  But  with  his  clothes  dripping  wet  it  would  not  have  been  very 
pleasant  to  the  Eunuch  to  have  proceeded  on  his  journey  along  a  dusty  road  in  a 
Bandy  desert  and  under  the  rays  of  a  vertical  sun.  Such  a  condition  of  person 
surely  was  calculated  to  have  occasioned  discomfort  of  mind,  and  to  have  de- 
stroyed in  some  measure  the  joy  arising  from  his  having  received  the  initiating 
ordinance  of  baptism  and  becoming  united  with  the  visible  church. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  he  received  baptism  in  some^other  way  than  by 


44 

immersion,  and  that  to  &ni  from,  is  the  most  satiafactory  rendering  of  the  prrpo- 
sitions  eis  and  ek  in  this  passage. 

We  have  now,  in  three  eermons,  presented  our  reasons  in  favor  of  that  mode 
of  baptism  whicli  we  practice.  We  have  been  nnuch  censured  for  sprinkling  in- 
fants and  adults,  and  many  we  believe  have  condemned  us  merely  because  they 
have  heard  others  speak  against  us,  without  knowing  what  we  had  to  urge  in 
our  defence.  We  flatter  ourselves  that  we  have  succeeded  in  convincing  our 
readers  at  least,  that  it  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  the  sentiments  of  a 
religious  denomination,  merely  because  they  have  always  heard  them  caricatured 
and  spoken  against. 

We  hope,  that  we  have  made  some  progress  towards  the  checking  of  the  spirit 
of  rash  judging.  We  trust  we  have  made  it  apparent,  that  if  persons  venture  to 
Judge  at  al!,  that  ihey  should  be  both  circumspect  and  considerate  in  their  judge- 
ments. There  may  be  unfavourable  reports  concerning  those  who  practice  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling ;  they  may  be  loudly  denounced  and  unsparingly  decried  as 
the  friends  of  heresy,  and  the  promoters  of  an  anti- scriptural  practice,  but  re- 
ports and  denunciations  are  not  arguments,  nor  do  they  form  sufficient  ground  to 
go  upon  in  making  up  our  opinions. 

Finally,  it' would  occasion  us  much  joy  to  find  that  we  had  done  somethmg  in 
these  discourses,  to  promote  the  exercise  of  charity  among  the  followers  of  our 
blessed  Lord,  "  Charity  thinketh  no  evil ;  believeth  all  things ;  hopeth  all 
things."  Let  us  endeavor  to  possess  and  recommend  to  others  this  most  ex- 
cellent gift  of  charity.  This  is  the  bond  of  unity  among  saints  on  earth.  The 
man  who  looks  at  the  great  essentials  of  religion,  will  cultivate  the  spirit  of 
kindness,  love  and  patience.  No  pent  up  party  in  religion  can  confine  his  ethe- 
rial  spirit.  He  has  an  enlarged  benevolence  which  cannot  be  cramped  with  sec- 
tarian prejudices,  which  overleaps  denominational  lines,  and  which  can  look  over 
into  the  pale  of  another  Church  and  feel  that  God  is  honored  there,  and  unite  ia 
spirit  with  those  who  worship  him  there  in  spirit  and  truth. 

"  As  members  then  of  Christian  Churches,  let  us  cultivate  a  spirit  of  prayer. 
The  more  this  prevails,  the  greater  is  the  probability  of  union  and  success.  Let 
us  persevere  in  our  supplications  for  all  the  friends  and  followers  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  that  they  may  dwell  together  in  unity,  being  firmly  united  in  their  affec- 
tions to  each  other  with  the  bond  of  peace.  We  know  who  hath  said,  that  he 
loves  the  gates  of  Zion  more  than  all  the  dwellings  of  Jacob  ;  and  who  hath  en- 
couraged us  to  unite,  by  saying  wherever  two  or  three  meet  together  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.  Let  us,  in  short,  adopt  the  prayer  of  him  who 
said,  « Peace  be  within  thy  walls,  and  prosperity  within  thy  palaces ;'  for  ray 
brethren  and  companion's  sake  we  will  now  say.  Peace  be  within  thee  ;  because 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  we  will  seek  thy  good." 


SERMON  IV. 


MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

Ephrsians  iv,  5.     One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism. 

The  baptism  here  referred  to,  ia  not  the  baptism  ot  water,  but  of  the  Spirit. 
Ii  is  classed  with  a  number  of  unities,  each  of  which  are  used  as  arguments  to 
urge  Christians  "  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  boad  of  peace."  "  There 
is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling  ; 
one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all, 
and  through  all,  and  in  you  all."  These  unities  are  Spiritual,  and  as  baptism  is 
one  of  the  number,  it  is  of  course  Spiritual  baptism.  The  one  baptism,  there- 
fore, which  all  true  Christians  have  received,  is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
into  a  saving  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  a  joyful  hope  of  eternal  life,  through 
his  atonement  and  mediation.  "  For  by  one  Spirit,  we  are  all  baptized  into  one 
body."     1  Cor.  xii,  13. 

John  Bunyan,  the  author  of  "  Pilgrims  Progress",  though  an  Immersionalist, 
regarded  this  as  the  correct  interpretation.  He  understood  the  phrase  one  bap- 
tism to  mean^the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  reply  to  an  opponent  who  in- 
quired what  he  meant  by  <«  spiritual  baptism,"  he  says,  "  I  treat  not  here  of  one 
being  baptized  with  the  spirit,  with  respect  to  its  coming  from  heaven  into  us, 
but  that  act  of  the  Spirit,  when  come,  which  baptized  into  a  body,  or  church. 
Seeing  the  argument  taken  from  that  one  baptism,  respecteth  church  fellowship 
properly  ;  and  seeing  water  baptism  meddleth  not  with  it  as  such,  it  is  the  other, 
even  that  in  1  Cor.  xii,  16,  that  is  here  intended,  and  no  other." 

The  view  which  Bunyan  entertained  of  this  passage,  was  modified  by  his  doc- 
trine of  open  communion.  He  received  all  true  Christians  to  the  table  of  the 
Lord,  holding  "  a  sound  faith,  and  an  honest  conversation  in  the  world,"  indis- 
pensable qualifications  to  "church  communion."  Baptism,  he  says,  makes  thee 
no  member  of  the  church,  neither  particular,  nor  universal ;  neither  doth  it  make 
thee  a  visible  saint :  it  therefore,  gives  thee  neither  right  to,  nor  being  of  mem- 
bership at  all.  One  Spirit,  one  hope,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  (not  of 
water,  for  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,)  one  God  and  Father 
of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all,  is  a  sufficient  rule  for  us  to 
hold  communion  by,  and  also  to  endeavor  the  maintaining  of  that  communion." 

Happy  would  it  be  for  the  Church  of  Christ,  if  Bunyan's  "  peaceable  princi- 
ples and  true,"  as  he  calls  them,  on  this  eubject  prevailed.     How   many   Chris- 


47 

tians  would  they  unite  in  firm  and  lasting  union,  who  now  are  divided  into  difFer- 
ent  communions,  having  separate  and  conflicting  interests.  But  the  time  has 
not  yet  come  when  the  Lord's  people  "  shall  see  eye  to  eye,. when  they  sliall  all 
speak  the  same  thing,  and  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in 
the  same  judgment."  The  Immersionalists,  as  a  body,  conceive  that  they  have 
a  right  to  debar  from  the  privileges  of  communion  persons  who  are  discovered 
to  be  visible  saints  by  the  word  of  God,  because  they  have  not  been  baptized  by 
immersion,  and  in  their  zeal  to  maintain  their  exclusive  practice  contend,  that 
the  one  baptism  of  the  text  is  not  of  the  Spirit,  but  of  water  and  has  particular 
reference  to  its  mode  by  immersion.  Dr.  Gill  comments  on  the  phrase  "  one 
baptism,"  as  follows:  "There  is  but  one  baptism  under  the  Gospel;  for  John's 
and  Christ's  are  the  same.  There  are,  besides,  figurative  and  metaphorical 
ones,  which  are  so  in  an  improper  sense,  as  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  the 
baptism  of  blood,  or  of  sufferings  ;  but  there  is  but  one  baptism,  literally  and 
properly  so  called,  which  is  water  baptism  ;  and  which  is  to  be  administered  in 
one  and  the  same  way,  by  immersion  in  water;  and  on  one  and  the  same  sub- 
jects, believers  in  Christ." 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  Immersionalists  should  endeavor  to  sustain  their 
favorite  theory,  by  such  interpretations  of  God's  word  as  this.  It  prevents  agree- 
ment and  union.  It  compels  us  to  differ  from  them  in  our  judgment  of  the 
meaning  of  Scripture,  and  prevents  the  settlement  of  a  dispute  in  the  Church 
of  Christ,  which  should  have  been  ended  long  ago. 

In  this  discourse  we  propose,  as  in  our  last,  to  reply  to  the  arguments  of  the 
Immersionalists.  An  argument  on  which  they  lay  great  stress,  is  the  supposed 
analogy  of  baptism  to  the  burial  of  Christ.  They  cite  Rom.  vi,  3,  and  Col.  ii, 
12,  to  shew  that  the  Scriptures  have  used  the  burial  of  Christ  to  represent  the 
mode  of  baptism,  because  it  is  said  in  them  that  "  believers  are  baptized  into  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death." 

'  That  the  Immersionalists  have  mistaken  the  meaning  of  these  passages,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  there  is  no  agreement  between  immersion  and  the  burial 
of  Christ.  Let  us  suppose  that  Christ  had  been  buried  by  letting  his  body  down 
into  the  grave  and  covering  it  with  earth.  The  analogy  between  immersion  and 
his  burial  fails,  because,  in  this  case,  the  earth  was  cast  upon  his  body,  and  was 
applied  to  his  body,  his  body  not  being  thrust  into  or  through  the  earth.  This 
should  have  been  done  to  make  it  resemble  immersion,  for  when  a  person  is  im- 
mersed he  is  thrust  into  and  through  the  baptismal  element.  Hence,  if  Christ 
had  been  buried  according  to  the  present  mode  of  interment,  his  burial  would 
be  analagous  rather  to  the  mode  of  baptism  by  pouring  than  immersing. 

The  analogy  also  fails  in  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  Christ  actually  waa 
buried.  His  body  was  not  deposited  in  the  earth,  but  in  a  room  hewn  out  of  the 
solid  rock,  which  for  a  time  was  left  open  to  the  inspection  and  visits  of  hia 
friends.  Hence,  there  was  in  his  burial  no  more  resemblance  to  immersion  than 
if  his  body  had  been  deposited  in  the  apartment  of  a  house ;  and  it  would  be 
very  strange  to  say  that  this  haa  any  resemblance  to  immersion  under  water. 


48 

Another  thing  which  shews  that  the  immersionalists  have  mistaken  tiie  de-» 
sign  of  these  passage?,  is  the  fact  that  they  do  not  allude  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 
(Rom.  vi,  3,  4,)  "  Know  ye  not  that  as  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Tiierefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death  ;  that  as  like  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

In  the  preceding  chapter  the  Apostle  had  discoursed  about  gratuitous  justifi- 
cation, that  is,  justification  by  faith  without  works.  To  this  doctrine  the  natural 
heart  objects,  ''that  it  renders  obedience  to  the  moral  law  useless  ;  and  that  the 
more  evil  a  man  does,  the  more  the  grace  of  God  will  abound  to  him  in  his  re- 
demption from  that  evil."  In  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter,tiie  Apostle  slates  this 
objection.  "  What  shall  we  say  then  7  Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace 
may  abound  1"  that  is,  is  it  a  fair  inference  from  this  doctrine,  that  Christians 
ought  to  commit  sin  in  order  that  the  favor  of  God  may  abound  in  their  pardon? 
In  the  second  verse  the  Apostle  declares  that  this  objection  is  unfounded,  be- 
cause Christians  are  dead  to  sin  and  cannot  any  longer  live  therein.  "  God  for- 
bid. How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  1  Now,  that  thid 
is  the  condition  of  true  Christian--,  that  they  are  dead  to  sin,  and  do  not  habitual- 
ly continue  in  its  practice,  the  Apostle  shews  in  the  third  and  fourth  verses.  He 
does  this  by  referring  to  onr  baptism  by  which  we  profess  Christ,  and  are  initia- 
ted into  a  fellowship  with  him  in  his  death,  burial  and  resurrection.  We  have 
put  on  Christ  in  baptism,  he  says,  and  we  arc  dead,  and  not  only  so  but  more, 
we  are  buried  with  Christ,  and  hence,  can  no  more  continue  a  course  of  siu 
than  one  dead  and  buried  can  continue  to  live.  We  are  so  comprehended  in 
Christ  and  united  to  him,  as  to  have  died  to  a  course  of  sin  as  he  died  to  this 
life,  as  to  have  extinguished  the  prevailing  desire  of  wickedness  in  our  flesh,  as 
his  life  was  extinguished  when  he  was  buried,  and  as  to  have  been  quickened  to 
a  life  of  holiness,  as  he  was  to  life  again  when  he  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father.  "Dying,  as  one  has  remarked,  is  the  thing  insisted  on, 
the  principal  idea,  on  which  the  whole  passage  turns."  We  are  not  said  to  be 
baptized  into  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death,  burial  or  grave,  but  into  his  death  and 
burial.  Hence,  if  the  allusion  here  was  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  expression 
would  be,  baptized  into  the  likeness  of  his  death,  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  the  likeness  of  his  death.  * 

*  "  Or,  know  ye  not  that  as  many  of  us  as  are  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,''  (viz., 
to  testify  our  communion  that  we  have  with  Clirist  by  faith.)  '^  we  are  baptized 
into  his  death."  (That  is,  are  assured  by  baptism  that  we  have  communion  in 
his  death,  whereby  not  only  our  sins  are  expiated  before  God,  but  also  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  procured,  by  whose  working,  the  corruption  that  is  m  us  hath  its  life  or 
reigning  power  taken  away,  which  is  the  first  degree  of  our  regeneration.  Titus 
iii,  5,  6-)  "  We  are,  therefore,  buried  with  Mm,"  (that  is  the  second  degree  of 
our  regeneration,  which  is  sealed  unto  us  by  baptism  ;  viz  :  the  increasing  and 
persevering  in  the  killing  of  sin  in  us  ;  as  burial  was  a  continuance  ot  Christ's 
death,  ver.  6.)  "  by  baptism  into  death,  that  in  like  manner  as  Christ  tvas  raised 
from  the  dead  unto  the  glory  of  the  Father.'"  (Gr,  dia,  which  word  most  common- 
ly signifies  by,  i,  e.,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  yet  is  also  sometimes  taken  for 
to,  which  fits  best  here,  see  2  Pet.  i,  3.  ',  Even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life"  This  is  the  third  step  of  our  regeneration,  which  we  receive  by 
the  virtue  of  Christ's  resurrpction,  and  is  signified  and  scaled  unto  us   by  bap^ 


49 

Of  similar  import  with  this  passage  are  the  words  in  Col.  ii,  13.  "Buried 
with  him  in  baptism  wherein  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  ope- 
ration of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  The  subject  of  the  discourse  is 
♦*  the  putting  off  of  the  body  of  sins."  This  is  accomplished  by  regeneration, 
the  circumcision  of  Christ,  the  circumcision  made  without  liands.  Of  this  put- 
ting off  the  body  of  sins,  baptism  is  significant,  in  which  or  by  which  we  profess 
Christ,  and  are  brought  into  a  fellowship  with  him  in  Jiis  burial  and  resurrection. 
The  passage,  therefore,  asserts  that  Christians  have  a  mortified  temper,  and  aro 
conformed  to  Christ,  that'  is,  are  hol}^  alive  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ. 
This  is  signified  by  their  baptism.  * 

Another  argument  of  the  Inimersionalists  is  the  history  of  Immersion.  They 
assure  us  that  it  is  evident  from  Ecclesisatical  histor}%  that  Inimersion  was  uni- 
versally practised  in  the  primitive  Church. 

On  this  argument  we  offer  the  following  remarks  ;  "  If  this  is  a   conclusive 
argument  in  favor  of  baptizing  by  immersion,  it  must  also  be  a  conclusive  argu.^ 
mcnt  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.     But  Immersionalists  reject  the  argument  from 
Ecclesiastical  history  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.     To  be  consistent  they   ought 
also  to  reject  the  argument  from  ecclesiastical  history  in  favor  of  immersion." 

Admitting,  however,  which  is  all  that  can  be  admitted,  that  immersion  was 
early  and  extensively  practised,  we  contend  that  it  was  not  considered  essential, 
and  that  other  modes  of  baptism  were  in  use.  The  feeble  and  sick  were  bap- 
tized by  affusion,  and  it  was  considered  valid.  Cyprian,  one  of  the  fathers  of 
the  Christian  Church,  who  flourished  after  A.  D.  240,  about  140  years  after  the 
Apostolic  age,  says  that  baptism  by  aspersion  when  administered  to  the  sick  wag 
lawful. 


tism  ;  namely,  that  we  have  received  power  from  henceforth  to  walk  in  newness 
of  life,  that  is,  in  holiness  and  purity."  "Het  weick  oock  op  onse  wijse  van  doop- 
en  door  besprenginge  wel  kan  gepast  icorden"  i.  e.  which  may  well  be  applied  to 
our  manner  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling. — Dutch  Bible  with  Annotations,  ordered 
and  appointed  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  1618,  and  published  by  authority,  1037. 

*  "  Being  buried  with  him  in  baptism,'^  (or,  buried  by  baptism).  For  in  bap- 
tism it  is  signified  and  sealed  unto  u?,  that  our  old  man  is  mortified  bv  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  consequently  buried  also,  i.  e.  by  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  he 
hath  so  lost  his  reigning  power,  that  he  is  like  a  dead  and  buried  body,  which 
cannot  move  itself  to  reign,  although  indeed  it  send  forth  its  smell  still,  until  it 
shall  be  wholly  put  away  by  the  same  death  and  spirit  of  Christ,  Rom.  vi,  3,  fee. 
"  In  which,"  (namely,  baptism  or  Christ.  For  both  are  true,  but  in  a  different 
manner.  For  by  the  power  of  Christ's  resurrection  we  are  raised  up  to  new- 
ness of  life,  and  by  baptism  the  same  is  also  sealed,  Rom.  vi,  4,  &c.  And  the 
Apostle  seeks  thereby  to  prove  that  we  have  no  more  need  of  the  very  seal  of 
circumcision  in  the  New  Testament,  seeing  baptism  now  signifies  and  seals  the 
very  same  unto  us.)  "  Ye  are  also  raised  up  with  [/(m]  by  failh."  (Namely, 
without  which  the  outward  baptism  hath  no  virtue.  For  he  tliat  believeth  and 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  Mark  xvi,  16.  Therefore,  faith  receiveth  the  benefit 
which  baptism  holds  forth  and  seals  to  us.)  "  Of  the  vjorking  of  God.''  (Here- 
by may  be  understood  either  the  power  of  God,  whereby  faith  is  wrought  in  us  : 
or  the  foundation  of  faith  whereto  it  hath  respect  in  our  renovation,  namely,  to 
the  power  of  God  who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  whereby  we  are  raised  frora 
the  death  of  sin  j  "  v:ho  raised  him  from  (lie  dead,"' — Dutch  .\nnotationF,  &,c. 

7 


50 


*'  Unde  apparet  adspersionem  quoque 
aquae  instar  salutaris  lavacri  obtinere, 
ct  quando  hsec  in  ccclosia  fiercnt  ubi 


"From  whence  it  appears  that  the  as- 
persion ot  water  also,  is  of  like  value 
with  tlie   wholesome  bath,  and  where 


eit  et  accipientis  ct  dantis,  fides  integra,]these  things  are  done   in  the  Church, 


etare  omnia  ;  et  consummari  ac  perfici 
posse  magistale  Domini  et  fidei  veri- 
tate." 


where  the  faith  is  sound  by  the  giver 
and  receiver,  and  the  whole  is  done  with 
due  fidelity,  and  agreeably  to  the  majes- 
ty of  the  divine  character,  all  is  valid." 


NovATlAN,  who  in  the  year  251,  was  ordained  the  paster  of  a  Church  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  and  was  the  founder  of  a  eect  called  by  his  name,  which  resisted 
the  corruptions  that  were  finding-  their  way  into  the  Church,  was  baptized  by 
sprinkling.  Novatian  and  his  followers  were  greatly  slandered  by  their  ene- 
mies, and  it  appears  that  Eusebius  himself  was  not  altogether  free  from  preju- 
dice against  him.  For  he  quotes  from  the  letter  of  Cornelius  bishop  of  Rome 
to  Fabius  (who  was  evidently  unfriendly  to  NqvaTian,)  what  he  relates  respect- 
^g  his  character  and  baptism.  Speaking  of  his  baptism  he  says,  *'  the  first  oc- 
casion of  his  faith  was  a  dangerous  distemper ;  and  when  all  hopes  of  life  were 
goncj  he  received  baptism  by  the  pouring  on  of  icater,  as  he  lay  in  his   bed ;  if  in- 


tiyi  ^ori  Xeyci-v  rov  roiovrov  si\ri(ptvat." — Eccl. 
History,  Book  Vi.  Chapter  43 


deed,  it  be  proper  to  say  that  one  like  him 
did  receive  baptism.'' 


Notwithstanding  this  last  remark,  it  seems  that  his  baptism  was  considered  val- 
id, for  he  was  afterwards  ordained  a  Presbyter,  without  being  re-baptized,  though 
not  without  some  opposition  ;  for  Cornelius  adds :     *'  This  illustrious  character 


rrtpi^vQeura    cJSTtp     Koi    oUTOi     tij   KXrjpoi/    Tii>a 
fiovov  ')^cipoTovr]iai.' 


abandoning  the  church  of  God,  in  vvhich, 
when  he  was  converted  he  was  honored 
with  the  presbytery,  ard  that  by  the  fa- 
vor of  the  bishop  placing  his  hands  upon 
him  (ordaining  him)  to  the  order  of  bish- 
ops, and  as  all  the  clergy  and  many  of 


the  laity  resisted  it,  since  it  was  not  lawful  that  one  baptized  in  his  sick  bed  by  as- 
persion, as  he  was,  should  be  promoted  to  any  order  of  the  clergy,  the  bishop  re- 
quested that  it  should  be  granted  him  to  ordain  only  this  one." 

This  is  the  account  of  a  writer  evidently  unfriendly  to  Novatian.  And  yet,  it 
appears  from  this  very  account,  that  Novatian's  baptism  by  aspersion  was  recog- 
nized as  valid  by  some  of  the  Ecclesiastics  of  the  time,  and  if  they  regarded  bap- 
tism by  aspersion  as  lawful  in  his  case,  they  did  also  in  the  case  of  others.  But 
Novatian  became  the  founder  of  a  numerous  sect  who  were  called  Cathari, 
and  who  were  in  their  turn  the  fathers  of  the  Waldenses.  Now,  it  is  probabla 
that  they  imitated  the  example  of  their  founder  in  their  practice,  as  to  the  mode 
of  baptism,  for  if  he  considered  aspersion  valid  baptism  they  undoubtedly  viewed 
it  in  the  same  light.  Hence,  it  is  proper  for  us  to  infer  in  the  absence  of  all  proof 
to  the  contrary,  that  thcy^  adnunistered  baptism  by  aspersion  in  accordance 
with  the  example  of  their  founder.  Constaktink,  the  emperor  of  Rome,  was 
also  baptized  either  by  pouring  or  spjfinkling- 


51 

EvAQARius,  *  (and  with  hirn  Socrates  and  Theodoret  agroe,)  say:*  "  that 
•Constantine,  at  the  clo33  of  his  life,  was  tinged  or  sprinkled  in  the  bath  or  the 
laver  of  baptism  at  Nicomedia,  and  besides,  he  had  deferred  ',it  until  that  time, 
because  he  had  greatly  desired  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan."  Eu- 
SEBios  in  his  life  of  Constantine,  confirms  the  statement  of  Evagariue,  and 
says  that  Constantine  declared  that  it  had  always  been  his  desire  and  purpose  to 
have  been  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan,  and  that  he  relinquished  it  only  because 
the  providence  of  God  had  prevented  the  execution  of  his  wishes.  The  mode  of 
his  baptism  Eusebius  does  not  describe,  unless  the  following  words  connected 
with  that  transaction  allude  to  it.  •'  But  all  the  sacred  things  being  finished,  and 
he  being  clothed  in  splendid  royal  apparel,  and  with  clearer  light,  reclined  upon 
his  shining  bed,"  &c.  "  Then  with  a  clear  voice  he'prayed  and  gave  thanks  to 
God,  and  said  nearly  these  words,"  &c.  This  passage  many  imply  that  Con- 
stantine received  baptism  lying  on  his  bed,  and  if  so,  then  the  mode  of  its  ap- 
plication to  him  was  by  aspersion. 

Robinson,  in  his  history  of  baptism,  says  that  the  baptism  of  Constantine  in 
some  ancient  engravings  at  Rome  is  described  bj' pouring'.  "The  Emperor  is 
kneeling  stark  naked  in  a  laver;  Sylvester  is  pouring  water  upon  his  head,  and  a 
verse  declares  he  was  at  the  same  time  both  baptized  and  cured  of  the  leprosy. 
"  Rex  baptizatur,  et  leprse  sorde  lavatur,"  i.e.  The  King  was  baptized  and 
washed  from  the  filth  of  leprosy.  This  is  evidently  fabulous,  for  the  disease  which 
afflicted  Constantino  v/hen  he  visited  Nicomedia  for  the  purpose  of  receiving 
baptism,  was  not  cured  by  his  baptism,  but  terminated  his  life.  Eusebius  and  the 
other  Ecclesiastical  historians,  who  allude  to  his  baptism  and  death,  state  that 
when  he  was  65  years  of  age  he  was  .seized  witli  a  severe  and  painful  illness, 
that  he  sought  relief  in  the  warm  baths  of  the  city  of  Helenopolie,  but  obtaining 
no  benefit  and  finding  death  approaching,  he  hastened  to  Nicomedia,  and  hav- 
ing assembled  the  ecclesiastics  of  that  city  and  acquainted  them  with  his  desire 
to  receive  baptism,  he  was  tinged  in  the  laver  of  baptism,  by  which  being  much 
comforted,  he  made  his  will  and  divided  his  empire  between  his  three  Song. 
"His  will  being  made,"  says  Socrates,  "  and  his  life  being  prolonged  a  few  days, 
"mortem  oppetil''  he  died. 

By  whatever  mode  he  received  Baptism,  whether  by  sprinkling  lying  on  his 
bed,  or  in  a  baptismal  font  by  pouring  :  there  is,  however,  an  important  fact 
brought  out  in  this  case,  which  we  will  notice  here.  Constantine  showed  no 
preference  to  immersion  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  except  only  as  its  administration 
should  be  in  the  river  Jordan.  He  was  entirely  indifferent  to  it,  if  performed  in 
any  other  stream,  for  he  did  not  avail  himselfof  the  privilege  of  immersion,  as  he 
would  have  done,  if  he  had  believed  it  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism.  Further- 
more, the  persons  who  baptised  Constantine,  appear  to  have  had  no  scruples  a- 
bout  baptizing  the  Emperor  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Hence,  it  is  evident  that 
pouring  and  aspersion,  were  practised  at  that  early  day,  and  that  each  were  con- 
eidered  valid. 


M 


*  Evagarius.  "  baptismi  lavacro  /f/wRm."     Socralfs,  "  lavacro    baptismalis, 
quod  est  Ckrislianoriim  propmnn  tingue'i^'  .»^ 


52 

•'  Sixty  or  seventy  years  aftor  the  Apostles,  a  Jew  while  Ira  veiling  with  Chris' 
tians  fell  sick  and  desired  baplism.  Not  having  water,  they  sprinkled  himthrics 
with  sand.  He  recovered.  His  case  was  reported  to  the  Bishop,  who  decided 
*Jiat  the  man  was  baptized,  if  only  he  had  7vater  poured  on  him  again.''  Lauren- 
tios  the  martyr  is  mentioned  as  baptizing  two  persons,  Romanus  and  Lucilius,  by 
affusion."  A  Utile  while  before  he  suffered,  he  baptized  ouft  of  his  execution- 
ers with  Si  pitcher  of  water:  Strabc,  a  distinguished  writer,  who  flourished  about 
A.  D.  853  says,  "it  is  to  be  observed  that  many  have  been  baptized,  not  only  by 
immersing,  but  by  pouring  water  on  a  man  from  above,  and  they  may  still  be  so 
baptized  if  it  is  necessary.  As  in  the  martyrdom  of  Saint  Laurentius,  we  read 
that  a  certain  person  was  baptised  with  a  pitcher  which  was  brought.  This 
form  was  also  admitted,  when  the  baptismal  fonts  were  to  small  to  receive  large 
persons,  and  would  not  permit  the  administration  of  baptism  by  immersion." 

The  Marcosii,  an  ancient  sect,  Epiphanius,  states  on  the  the  authority  of  Ire- 
nfBus,  baptized  by  pouring.  They  mixed  water  with  oil,  and  poured  it  on  the 
heads  of  those  who  vvere  initiated  into  their  fellowship. 

Gregory  Bishop  of  Rome,  says,  that  Augustine  baptized,  A.D.  597,  more  than 
lO,000  Brittons  on  a  Christmas  day.  Pouring  or  sprinkling  must  have  been  the 
mode  employed  in  this  case  ,  for  one  man  could  not  have  baptized  10,000  per- 
sons by  immersion  in  a  week. 

Tertulljan,  who  was  born  about  A.  D.  143,  speaks  of  baptism  being  adminis- 
tered by  sprinkling,  "  Who  will  accommodate  you,  a  man  so  little  to  be  trusted 
with  one  sprinkling  of  water." 

Lactantius  who  flourished  about  300years  after  the  Apostolic  age,says,  "  When 
Jesus  was  grown  up,  he  was  baptized  (tinctus  est)  by  the  propliet  John  in  the 
river  Jordan  ;  not  that  he  might  wash  away  his  own  sins  by  the  spiritual  laver, 
for  he  had  none  ;  but  for  an  external  purification  :  that,  as  he  had  saved  the  Jews 
by  circumcision,  so  also  he  might  save  the  Jews  by  baptism,  that  is,  (purifici 
roris  perfusione)  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  purifying  water-"  The  word  ros  is 
used  to  denote  water  or  any  other  fluid.  Propertius,  "lonio  rore,"  i.  e.  Ionian 
Sea.  Ovid,  "  Vivo  prolue  rore  manus,"  i.  e.  wash  the  hands  with  living,  flow- 
ing water.  "  Artus  liquido  perfundore  rore,"  i.  e.  to  besprinkle  the  limbs  with 
pure  Vv'ater. 

Augustine,  (De  Eccl.  Uogmat.  chap.  Lxxivj  says,  "  The  person  to  be  baptized 
is  either  sprinkled  with  icater  or  dipped  in  it." 

Cyprian,  Jerome,  Theodoret  and  otliers  of  the  Fathers,  understood  the  pre- 
diction "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,"  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25,  as  having  ref- 
erence to  water  baptism.  Cyprian  says,  "  Nor  let  any  be  moved  by  the  fact,  that 
the  sick  when  they  are  baptized,  are  only  perfused  or  sprinkled,  since  the  Scrip- 
ture says,  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  (chap,  xxxvi,  25,  36;  1  will  sprinkle  clean  wa- 
ter upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  :  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your 
idols  will  I  cleanse  you  ;  a  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will 
I  put  within  you."  fljL 

"Jerome  and  Augustine  speal^of  a  mode  of  baotism  as  common  in    the  an 


53 

cient  Churcli,  wliich  wad  not  to  dip  the  whole  body,  but  a  thrice  dipping  of  tlie 
head."  Gennadius  who  flourished  A.  D.  490,  says,  "the  person  to  be  baptized 
makes  confossioii  of  his  faith  before  the  priest,  and  after  the  confession,  he  is 
either  tvelted  with  tvater  or  plunged  into  it."  Nicetas  Serronius  in  the  9th  cen- 
tury, speaks  of  those  "  who  have  been  baptized  by  pouring."*  Thomas  Acqui- 
nas,  who  died  A.  D.  1274,  says  "  baptism  may  be  given,  not  only  by  immersion 
but  also  by  affusion  of  water  or  sprinkling  with  it,  but  he  says  it  is  safer  to  bap- 
tize by  immersion,  because  this  is  the  general  practice." 

Bonaventura,  a  contemporary  of  Acquinas,  observes,  "the  way  of  affusion    ia 
«    baptism  was  probably  used  by  the  Apostles,  and    was  in   his  time  used  in  the 
Churches  of  France  and  some  others  ;"  but  remarks,   "the  method  of  dipping 
into  the  water  is  the  more  common,  and  therefore  the  fitter  and  safer." 

Duns  Scotus,  who  became  the  head  of  the  schools  at  the  University  of  Paris,  and 
was  the  chief  of  the  schoolmen,  whose  death  occurred  about  the  year  1309,  says, 
"  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  ablution,  as  that  is  contra-distin- 
guished from  Jz^as^in^,  and  includes  the  removal  of  filth  from  the  body  by  the 
contaction  of  v/ater  ;  but  a  washing  of  the  body,  so  called  in  general,  by  water 
acting  upon  it  to  another  purpose,  is  sufHcient ;  which  implies  nothing  else  but 
that  it  is  necessary  a  contaction  of  the  body  by  means  of  water  should  be  effec- 
ted by  another  causing  that  contact.  But  universal  antiquity  hath  given  its  suf- 
frage, that  this  contact  may  be  done  either  by  immersion  or  by  sprinkling.  But 
the  dipping  of  infants,  was  more  usual  down  to  the  times  of  Gregory  and  Isi- 
dore." 

In  the  year  753,  Stephen  iii,  Bishop  of  Rome  being  'assailed  by  Astulphu?, 
King  of  the  Lombards,  fled  to  Pepin,  King  of  France.  While  he  remained  there, 
the  monks  of  Cressy,  in  Brittany,  consulted  him,  whether  in  a  case  of  necessity, 
baptism,  performed  by  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  ihe  infant,  out  of  the  hand 
or  a  cup,  would  be  lawful.  Stephen  answered  :  if  such  a  baptism  were  perform- 
ed, in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  it  should  be  held  valid. 

The  Synod  of  Angiers,  A.  D.  1275,  speaks  of  dipping  and  pouring  as  indiffer- 
ently used  ;  and  blames  some  ignorant  priests,  because  they  dipped  or  poured  on 
water  but  once ;  and  at  the  same  declaring  that  the  general  custom  of  the  church 
was  to  dip  or  to  pour  on  water  three  times.  In  the  year  1311,  a  legislative  coun- 
cil at  Rajrenna  declared  immersion  or  sprinkling  to  ba  indifferent.  The  Synod 
ot  Ijangres,  A.  D.  1404,  speaks  of  pouring  or  perfusion  only.  "Let  the  priest 
make  three  pourings  or  sprinklings  of  water  on  the  infant's  head."  The  Coun- 
cil of  Cologne,  in  1536,  evidently  intimate  that  both  modes  were  constantly  prac 
tised.  Their  language  is,  "  The  child  is  thrice  either  dipped  or  wetted  with 
water." 

Fifteen  years  afterwards,  in  the  Agenda  of  the  Church  of  Menlz,  published 
by  Sebastian,  there  is  found  the  following  direction  :  Then  let  the  priest  take 
the  child  on  his  left  arm,  and  holding  him  over  the  font,  let  him  with   his  right 

. . __i 

*  Porter,  in  Methodist  Magazine. 


54 

hand,  three  several  times,  take  water  out  of  the  font,  and  pour  it  on  the  child's 
head,  so  that  it  may  wet  its  head  and  ehouldera.  Then  they  give  a  note  for  this 
purpose  ;  that  immersion,  once  or  thrice,  or  pouring  of  water  may  be  used,  and 
have  been  used,  in  the  chruch  ;  that  this  variety  does  not  alter  the  nature  of 
baptism  I  and  that  a  man  would  do  ill  to  break  the  custom  of  the  church  for 
either  of  them.  But  they  add,  that  it  is  better,  if  the  church  will  allow,  to  use 
pouring  on  of  water.  For  suppose,  say  they,  the  priest  be  old  and  feeble,  or 
have  the  palsy  in  his  hands ;  or  the  weather  be  very  cold  ;  or  the  child  be  very 
infirm  ;  or  too  big  to  be  dipped  in  the  font ;  then  it  is  much  fitter  to  use  affusion 
of  the  water." 

Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  who  was  born  A.  D.  1467,  and  died  A.  D.  l'>36,  affirms 
•'  that  in  his  time  it  was  the  custom  to  spnnfc/e  infants  in  Holland,  and  dip  them 
in  England." 

The  Waldenses,  it  is  admitted,  for  many  hundred  years  were  the  witnesses  for 
the  truth  during  the  dark  and  desolating  reign  of  the  Papacy,  But  it  is  a  fact 
that  after  the  Reformation  they  recognized  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Geneva 
and  France  as  ChristianChurches,  and  "maintained  communion  with  them  and  re- 
ceived ministers  from  them."  In  these  Churches  the  rite  of  baptism  has  from 
the  beginning  been  administered  by  aspersion.  This  fact  proves  incontestably 
that  the  Waldenses  baptized  by  sprinkling.  If  they  did  not,  if  they  practiced 
only  immersion,  how  could  they  have  received  ministers  from  the  Reformed 
Churches  who  were  in  favor  of  aspersion  and  who  unquestionably  practiced  it. 
How  could  they  have  held  open  communion  with  those  churches  ?  Surely  ;  if 
they  were  Immersionalists  they  did  not  believe  in  close  communion,  and  they 
did  not  lay  particular  stress  on  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion. 

The  immersionalists,  affirm  that  dipping  was  the  only  mode  of  baptism  prac- 
tised in  England,  until  A.  D.  1643,  when  sprinkling  was  established  for  immer- 
mersion,  by  the  Westminister  Assembly.  The  statement  which  they  make 
respecting  the  decision  of  the  Assembly,  on  this  subject  is,  "that  it  was  keenly 
debated  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines  held  at  Westminister,  in  1643,  whether  im- 
mersion or  sprinkling  should  be  adopted  ;  25  voted  for  sprinkling,  and  24  for  im- 
mersion ;  and_even  this  small  majority  was  obtained  at  the  earnest  request  of  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired  great  influence  in  that  assembly." 

This  statement  is  incorrect.  Sprinkling  was  practiced  in  England  before  the 
Westminister  A.ssembly  had  an  existence.  At  a  council  in  England  in  A. 
D.  8l7,  it  was  ordered  "that  baptism  should  not  be  administered  by  afffusion,  but 
by  dipping  the  whole  body  of  the  child  ^Areeh'mes.''*  Such  an  order  could  not 
have  proceeded  from  a  council  of  ministers,  if  aspersion  was  not  practiced  at  the 
time,  and  previously  to  the  time  it  was  issued  ;  if  there  had  been  no  practice  of 
that  kind,  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  make  a  law  against  it.  The  settlers  of 
New  England,  among  whom  were  ministers  and  laymen,  who  could  remember  the 
practice  of  the  church  in  England,  some  30  or  40  years  before  their  emio-ration  ; 
who  landed  at  Plymouth  rock,  A.  D.  1(520,  twenty  //irer  years   before  the  West- 


*Prie6tlev's  Eccl.  HIstorv. 


55 

minister  Assembly  was  convened,  practiced  sprinkling  in  the  administration  of 
baptism.  They  came  from  England,  and  were  the  founders  of  all  the  congrega- 
tional churches  in  this  country,  in  which  it  is  well  known,  no  other  mode  of  ad- 
ministrating baptism  but  by  aspersion  has  ever  prevailed.  They  of  course  brought 
the  practice  with  them,  and  hence  sprinkling  was  in  use  among  the  dissenters  or 
puritans  of  England,  many  years  before  the  Westminister  Assembly.* 

But,  there  was  no  debate  in  the  Assembly,  whether  sprinkling  was  proper. 
The  debate  was  respecting  the  retaining  in  the  directory  for  the  worship  of  God, 
which  a  committee  had  reported,  this  clause,  "  It  is  lawfnl  and  sufficient  to  be- 
sprinkle the  child."  Dr.  Lightfoot  objected  to  it,  because  he  thought  it  improp- 
er to  pronounce  sprinkling  lawful,  when  no  one  present  had  any  doubts  of  its 
being  so. 

"  Whereupon,"  says  Lightfoot  in  his  Journal,  "  it  was  fallen  upon,  sprinkling 
being  granted,  whether  dipping  should  be  tolerated  with  it.  It  was  at  last  put  to 
the  question,  whether  the  Directory  should  run  thus  :  '  The  Minister  shall  take 
water  and  sprinkle,  or  pour  it  with  his  hand  upon  the  face  or  forehead  of 
the  child  ;  and  it  was  voted  so  indifferently,  that  we  were  glad  to  count  twice  ; 
for  so  many  were  unwilling  to  have  dipping  excluded,  that  the  votes  came  to  an 
equality  within  one  ;  for  the  one  side  was  twenty-four, — the  pother  twenty-five. 

*  The  universal  practice  of  sprinkling  among  the  Congregationalists  of  New 
England,  is  decidedly  proved  by  the  case  of  Roger  Williams,  the  father  of  all  the 
Immersionalist  Churches  in  this  country.  Roger  Williams  probably  was  sprink- 
led in  his  infancy  ;  for  his  first  connection  was  with  the  Episcopal  Church,  in 
which  he  was  ordained  a  clergyman.  He  emigrated  to  New-England,  A.  D. 
1630.  He  assisted  for  a  short  time  Mr.  Skelton,  of  Salem.  Mass.,  in  his  pasto- 
ral labors,  and  afterwards  became  the  colleague  of  Mr.  Smith  of  Plymouth,  with 
whom  he  remained  two  years.  In  1636  he  founded  Providence  in  Rhode  Is- 
land, and  in  1638  the  first  Immersionalist  Church  in  New-England.  "He  first 
renounced  his  baptism  and  was  rebaptized  by  Mr.  Ezekiel  Holyman,  (who  seems 
to  have  been  a  layman)  and  then  proceeded  to  rebaptize  him  and  ten  others,  and 
thus  formed  the  first  Immersionalist  Church  in  this  country."  See  Encyclope- 
dia of  Religious  Knowledge,  and  Marsh's  Eccl.  History. 

From  this  statement,  it  is  obvious  that  sprinkling  universally  prevailed  in  all  the 
Churches  throughout  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  For  there  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  been  a  single  person  associated  with  Mr.  Williams  who  had  been 
immersed.  Mr.  Holyman  seems  not  to  have  been,  for  Mr.  Williams  immersed 
him  after  he  had  himself  been  immersed  by  Mr.  Holyman. 

Sprinkling,  therefore,  is  older  than  the  Westminister  Assembly,  for  Mr.  Holy- 
man  immersed  Mr.  Williams,  and  Mr.  Williams  immersed  Mr.  Holyman  about 
five  years  before  that  body  met,  and  both  had  been  baptized  by  sprinkling  proba- 
bly before  they  immersed  each  other. 

Sprinkling  is  furthermore  older  than  Immersion  in  this  country,  and  if  our  Im- 
mersionalist friends  trace  Immersion  back,  they  must  come  to  the  time  when  it 
was  first  administered  by  one  who  was  sprinkled,  and  who  on  their  principles 
could  not  administer  valid  baptism.  ^^ By  nullifying  our  baptism  consequently 
they  nullify  their  own ;  and  by  unchurching  us,  they  unchurch  themselves."  On 
their  ovv"n  principles  then,  their  own  ministers,  churches  and  members,  who  are 
in  the  line  of  Roger  Williams  and  Mr.  Holyman,  are  unbaptized  and  unauthor- 
ized.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  do  not  admit  this,  but  contend  that  Roger  Wil- 
liams received  valid  baptism  at  the  hands  of  Mr.  Holyman,  they  admit  that  our 
baptism  is  valid  and  sustain  ua  in  our  practice. 


56 

and  when  we  had  done  all,  wo  concluded  nothing  in  it ;  but  the   busines.'i  was  ri- 
committed.^' 

Thus,  it  appears  that  sprinkling  was  not  substimted  for  immersion  by  a  ma- 
jority of  one  vote,  for  tliere  was  no  point  settled  by  a  majority  of  one.  The 
whole  business  was  recommitted,  and  nothing  concluded  in  reference  either  to 
sprinkling  or  immersion,  by  the  vote  of  25  on  one  side,  and  24  on  the  other. 

After  this,  when  the  subject  of  the  Directory  was  resumed,  the  Assembly,  says 
Lightfoot  :  "thought  it  was  fit  and  most  safe  for  the  dispute  itself  about  dipping 
to  let  it  alone."  And  they  did  let  it  alone.  They  simply  deeided  "  tl)at  pouring 
or  sprinkling  water  on  the  face  of  the  child,  is  not  only  lawful,  but  also  sufficient 
and  most  expedient." 

They  expressed  no  opinion  about  dipping  at  all,  leaving  it  to  the  judgment  of 
persons  what  mode  of  baptism  to  choose.  The  final  vote  of  the  Assembly  in 
passing  the  Directory  for  the  worship  of  God,  was  unanimous,  and  it  contains 
those  words,  "  As  he  (the  minister)  pronounces  these  words,  he  is  to  baptize 
the  child  with  water,  by  pouring  or  spnnkling  it  on  the  face  of  the  child,  with- 
out adding  any  other  ceremony." 

From  these  considerations,  it  is  evident  that  the  argument  from  history  fails 
to  sustain  immersion  as  the  exclusive  and  only  valid  mode  of  baptism  practiced 
by  the  primitive  Church.  Other  modes  were  in  usp,  and  were  considered  law- 
ful and  necessary.* 


*  "It  is  remarkable,  says  Dr.  Dwight,  that  those  who  have  adopted  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism,  have  very  generally  considered  sprinkling,  or  affusion, 
and  that  those  who  liave  opposed  it,  have^considered  immersion,  respectively,  as 
the  proper  modes  of  administration.  Why  this  has  happened,  I  am  unable  to 
explain."  Mr.  Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  solves  this  riddle  which  has 
puzzled  others  besides  Dr.  Dwight.  He  says,  p.  409,  with  some  little  alteration 
of  his  language,  "  The  dipping  of  little  infants  was  found  to  be  a  very  trouble- 
some and  inconvenient  ceremowytsomeiimes  extremely  offensive,]  and  at  all 
times  depending  upon  a  hazard  which  must  give  (mothers)  a  great  deal  of  pain. 
The  inconveniences  of  the  ceremony  of  baptizing  infants  in  (tlie  form  of  immer- 
sion) hath  been  in  all  Churches  whore  it  hath  been  practised,  recorded  at  large. 
In  the  Roman  Church,  and  in  the  Greek,  children  have  been  drowned.  Baron- 
ius  mentions  one  who  lost  his  life  in  the  Vatican  baptistery  on  a  holy  Saturday. 
A  disagreeable  accident  happened  in  the  East  to  the  Emperor  Copronyinuj  at 
his  baptism,  in  Bohemia  to  the  Emperor  VVenceslaus  at  his,  and  the  caronical 
provisions  for  such  cases,  fully  imply  that  they  were^very  common." 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  baptizing  infants  by  immersion  has  been  re- 
linquished through  necessity.  An  enlightened  community  would  not  tolerate  it. 
Hence,  infant  baptism  and  immersion,  as  an  exclusivp  mode  of  baptism  cannot 
CO-EXIST  in  a  land  where  intelligence  and  common  sense  bear  sway,  and  not 
ignorance  and  superstition. 

f  An  old  writer  says  the  Church  was  "  arrayed  against  the  christening"  in  tho 
following  manner.  "  Near  unto  the  font  there  must  be  hanged  a  traves,  (frame 
of  wood)  with  carpets  and  quishions  (^uiZ/s)  to  the  same,  a  pan  of  coals  well 
burnt  before  they  come  there  for  smelling,  &nd  sweet  perfumes  to  cast  therein, 
chafferons  (vessels)  of  water,  with  basins  of  silver  and  gilt  to  wash  the  child  if 
iieed  be  ;"  for  the  nudus  innocens  interdum  in  baptismatc  eum  et  fontem  vontris 
profluvio  foedavit." 


67 

There  fs  one  fact  not  yet  alluded  to,  connected  with  the  history  of  immersion, 
to  which  we  will  now  call  the  attention  of  our  readers.  It  was  the  uniform  prac- 
tice in  the  ancient  Church,  to  baptize  in  a  state  of  nudity  those  who  were  ijap- 
tized  by  immersion.  Baptizing  by  immersion,  and  baplizingr  naked,  are  practi- 
ces wliich  stand  and  fall  together  ;  "and  there  is  the  same  amount  of  evidence 
in  favor  of  immersing  diverted  of  all  clothing,  that  there  is  for  immmersing  at 
all."*  •*  The  ancient  Christians,  as  Dr.  Wall  says,  when  they  were  baptized  by 
immersion,  were  all  baptized  naked,  vvhether  they  were  men,  women,  or  chil- 
dren." 

♦'  Nothing  is  easier,"  says  Mr.  Robinson,  "  than  to  give  proof  that  the  primi- 
tive Christians  baptized  naked,  by  quotations  from  the  authentic  writings  of  the 
men  who  administered  baptism,  and  who  certainly  knew  in  what  way  they 
themselves  performed  it.  There  is  no  ancient  historical  fact  better  authentica- 
ted than  this.  The  evidence  doth  not  go  on  the  meaning  of  the  single  word  na- 
ked  ;  for  then  a  reader  might  suspect  allegory  ;  but  on  many  facts  reported,  and 
many  reasons  assigned  for  the  practice."  ♦'  The  reasons  assigned  for  the  prac» 
tice  are,  that  Christians  ought  to  put  off  the  old  man  before  they  put  on  a  profes- 
sion of  Christianity  ;  that  as  men  came  naked  into  the  world,  so  tliey  ouglit  to 
come  naked  into  the  Church,  ior  rich  men  could  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  Heav- 
en ;  that  it  was  an  imitation  of  Christ,  who  laid  aside  his  glory,  and  made 
himself  of  no  reputation  for  them  ;  and  that  Adam  had  forfeited  all,  and  Christ- 
ians ought  to  profess  to  be  restored  to  the  enjoyment  of  all,  only  by  Jesus 
Christ."  t 

Another  reason,  and  a  very  prominent  one,  was,  *'  that  several  of  the  Fathers 
very  early  advanced  notions  respecting  the  actual  presence  of  the  Spirit  in  tho 
water,  strikingly  analagous  to  the  modern  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,anfl  this 
water  acquired,  in  their  opinion,  as  it  would  seem,  a  spiritual  value,  derived  from 
the  real  presence  of  the  Spirit  residing  in  the  water."  Hence,  originated  the 
names,  "death  of  sin,  regeneration,  access  to  God,  way  of  life,  vvaler  of  life, 
eternal  life,"  &c.  by  which  baptism  was  called, 

•'In  the  primitive  time?j  numbers  flocked  into  the  Church  from  the  polluted  em- 
braces of  heathenism  ;  it  is  therefore  very  conceivable  that  many  would  urge  & 
total  ablution,  and  for  greater  certainty  \.\ie  jplunging  of  the  convert,  that  no  part, 
no,  not  the  fingers  end,  might  remain  contaminated  with  former  idolatry.  And, 
surely,  if  the  baptismal  water  had  a  spiritual  value  and  efficacy,  "  if  it  was  re- 
generation, death  of  sin,  way  of  life,  water  of  life  and  eternal  life,"  it  was  but 
charitable  to  make  use  of  it  copiously  and  to  apply  it  to  every  part.  Hence,  ftom. 
the  same  principle,  joined  with  that  of  2eal  for  superstitious  self  denial  and  mor- 
tification in  unprescribed  ceremonies,  it  may  be  readily  perceived,  might  sinmU 
taneously  arise  the  practice  of  baptizing  naked,  and  of  baptizing  by  immersion. 

Accordingly,  dipping  continued  during  those  ages  when,  and  because,  exter- 
nals made  nearly  the  whole  of  religion  ;  and  still  continues  in  the  Greek  church, 

*  Dr.  Miller.  f  History  of  Baptism,  pp  94,  95, 


f^-^' 


there  ia  reason  to  fear  from  a  similar   cause  ;  for  it  ia  asserted  that  many  infants 

are  annually  destroyed  among  them  by  this  practice. 

Rome,  indeed  at  length,  though  abundantly  superstitious  in  other  respects,  be- 
gan to  relax  this  line  of  bigotry,  long  before  the  reformation.  And  whether  an 
attempt  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  dipping  as  essential  to  Christian  baptism,  be 
not  an  attempt  to  re-establish,  and  to  improve  upon,  what  was  unworthy  of  the 
darkest  ages  of  the  church,  Heave  to  be  considered  bythera  whom  it  concerns,"* 

Finally.  Another  argument  which  the  Immersionalists  wield  against  their 
opponents,  is  the  admissions  of  Psedobapiist  writers  in  reference  to  Immersion. 
Almost  every  author  on  their  side  has  selected  some  distinguished  writers  on  the 
side  of  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  has  so  quoted  their  words  as  to  make  them 
appear  to  admit  all  that  is  contended  for  by  their  opponents.  This  practice  we 
believe,  was  started  by  Booth,  in  his  work  entitled  Pfedobaptism  examined,  and 
has  been  followed  by  almost  every  writer  on  Immersion  since.  We  find  almost 
at  the  outset,  if  we  look  into  their  pages,  the  names  of  Budaeus,  Altringius,  Be- 
za,  Vitringa,  Venema,  Witsius,  Calvin,  with  fifty  others  of  the  ancients,  and  a 
dozen  or  more  of  the  moderns,  including  Stewart,  Woods,  Neander,  Chalmers 
and  others,  who  are  announced  as  having  given  in  their  adherence  to  Immer- 
sion, and  whose  concessions  are  set  forth  in  staring  capitals,  to  frown  into  si* 
lence  every  man  who  would  dare  to  move  his  tongue  against  Immersion. 

On  this  mode  of  reasoning,  we  offer  the  following  remarks, 

1.  The  concessions  of  Paedobaptist  wrtiers  in  general,  relate  to  what  no  one 
has  ever  denied,  viz  :  that  Immersion  is  valid  baptism,  and  that  baptizo,  among 
other  significations,  means  to  immerse.  This  is  yielding  nothing  ;  it  is  merely 
saying  that  baptism  by  Immersion  ia  a3  valid  as  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprink. 
ling. 

2.  But  if  Psedobaptist  writers,  without  any  exception  had  yielded  the  whole 
ground,and  conceded  all  that  the  Immersionalists  demand,even  then  the  arguments 
of  those  who  think  differently  would  not  be  disproved,  or  be  any  less  entitled  to 
consideration.  Their  concessions  after  al',  would  be  their  own  concessions,  they 
would  be  open  to  the  same  mistakes  with  other  men,  liable  to  err,  and  they  must 
etand  or  fall  as  they  are  tried  by  the  word  of  God. 

3.  Nothwithstanding  the  authority  of  great  men,  and  the  influence  of  great 
names,  and  the  opinions  of  profound  scholars,  every  man  has  a  right  to  inquire 
for  himself,  what  the  wprd  of  God  teaches,  to  conform  his  views  to  what  seems 
to  him  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  to  express  his  own  sentiments,  and 
to  demand  that  they  be  tried  not  by  comparing  them  with  the  opinions  of  others, 
but  with  the  declarations  of  Revelation,  It  is  consequently  unfair  to  embarrass 
him,  and  attempt  to  frown  him  down  by  thrusting  in  his  way  a  host  of  human 
opinions  and  authorities  professedly  of  his  views,  but  so  presented  as  apparently 
to  decide  against  his  convictions. 


I 


E.  Williams,  on  Baptism,  Vol.  II,  p  p  188,  189. 


59 

F  4.  But  unfair  &<>  such  a  procedure  is,  it  might  be  endured  with  patience  if 
these  authorities  were  quoted  right  in  every  case,  and  they  were  placed  in  their 
true  position  before  the  public.  This  has  not  been  done,  and  we  here  charge 
Bome  writers  on  the  side  of  immersion  with  not  dealing  truly  with  writers  in  fa- 
vor  of  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  a  mode  of  baptism.  They  have  so  quoted  theso 
writers  as  to  leave  a  wrong  impression  on  the  minds  of  their  readers  in  regard 
to  their  real  views. 

For  instance  :  when  Calvin  is  quoted,  a  single  sentence  is  generally  taken 
from  his  Institutes,  which  contains  a  concession  in  favor  of  Immersion.  But 
Calvin  did  not  say,  nor  did  he  mean  to  be  understood  when  he  penned  the  sen- 
tence, "  the  very  word  baptize  means  to  immerse,  and  it  is  certain  that  immer- 
sion was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  Church,"  that  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  also 
was  not  baptism,  and  that  it  was  not  practiced  in  the  Church — for,  in  the  very 
connection  in  which  these  expressions  occur,  he  uses  these  words  ;  "  But  wheth- 
er the  person  who  is  baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once, 
or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  importance. 
Churches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty  in  this  respect,  to  act  according  to  the  dif- 
ference of  countries." 

Witsius  has  conceded  «'  that  Baptize  in  its  native  acceptation,  means  to  plunge 
or  dip ;"  but  while  he  has  made  this  concession,  he  has  also  said,  "  though  bap= 
tizo  properly  signifies  to  plunge  or  dip,  yet  it  is  also  more  generally  used  for  any 
washing,  as  Luke  xi,  38."  He  also  says,  ''  we  are  not  to  imagine,  that  immer^ 
eion  is  so  necessary  to  baptism,  as  that  it  cannot  be  duly  performed  by  pouring 
water  all  over,  or  by  aspersion  ;  for  both  the  method  of  pouring  and  that  of  as-' 
persion,  are  not  without  arguments  for  them." 

Dr,  Woods  says,  "  for  myself,  I  could, without  any  serious  scruple  of  conscience, 
adopt  immersion,  as  the  usual  mode  of  baptism."  Yet,  he  immediately  proceeds 
to  shew,  "  that  it  cannot  be  determined  from  the  New  Testament,  that  baptism 
was  administered  by  immersion ;"  and  he  says,  without  any  qualification, 
•'  that  there  is  no  express  declaration  in  the  New  Testament,  that  every  one 
who  was  baptized  was  completely  immersed  in  water.  Nor  is  there  any  com= 
mand  of  Christ,  or  of  his  Apostles,  expressly  requiring  that  Christians  should  bo 
baptized  by  total  immersion" 

These  examples  may  suffice.  They  are  (See  Appendix,)  a  specimen  of  near-= 
ly  all  the  rest  who  have  been  called  to  give  their  testimony  in  favor  of  immersion. 
There  is  scarcely  one  of  them,  we  venture  to  say,  who  has  made  concessions  in 
favor  of  immersion,  who  has  not  defended  pouring  and  sprinkling  with  strong 
and  invincible  arguments,  and  who  has  not  died  in  the  faith  in  which  he  lived. 
It  is,therefore,very  wide  from  the  truth  to  present  them  before  the  public  as  having 
given  their  testimony  exclusively  in  favor  of  immersion,  and  to  convey  the  im- 
pression to  others,  that  by  a  feeble  and  relaxed  effort,  they  endeavored  to  sustain 
the  sinking  cause  of  aspersion.  They  never  doubted  the  scrength,  firmness  and  du- 
rability of  its  foundations.the  divinity  of  its  origin,  and  the  certainty  of  its  triumph. 

With  this  discourse,  we  close  the  discussion  of  the  mode  of  baptism.  We 
dismiss  the  subject,  with  one  or  two  remarks  : 


60 

1.  It  is  evidsnt  from  the  foregoing  examination  that  baptism,  by  sprinkling,  or 
pouting,  stands  on  as  solid  ground  as  immersion,  and  is  equally  valid  and  lawful. 
IJencc,  the  mode  of  baptism  sliould  not  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  serious  con- 
cern. Persons  of  sensitive  feelings,  should  not  allow  themselves  to  be  distres- 
sed on  such  a  subject.  No  man  has  a  right  to  exhibit  immersion  as  a  mode  of 
baptism  which  believers  are  required  to  use  exclusive  of  all  others,  and  to  pro- 
nounce t!)03e  unbaptized,  who  have  been  baptized  in  other  ways.  If  any  man 
assumes  such  a  right,  he  ought  not  to  be  listened  to  ;  he  goes  beyond  his  rule, 
and  assumes  an  unbecoming  confidence.  The  people  of  God  are  at  liberty  to 
vary  the  form  of  baptism,  as  their  health,  strength,  and  circumstances  may  re- 
quire. 

£.  Hence,  v^e  may  learn  the  importance  of  of  keeping  uppermost  the  great  in» 
terests  of  religon. 

The  sum  of  religion  is  obedience  to  God,  connected  with  purity  of  heart,  and 
of  life.  Zeal  about  baptism  can  convert  a  man  into  a  violent  sectarian,  but  it 
cannot  make  him  wise,  holy  or  happy.  It  is  nothing,  therefore,  to  an  individual, 
by  what  mode  of  baptism  he  was  baptized,  if  he  has  been  baptized  with  water  ; 
but  it  is  all  to  a  man  to  fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments.  The  fear  of  the 
Lord,  ^not  baptism)  is  wisdom;  and  to  depart  frcm  evil  is  understanding. 
If  there  is  anything  worth  contending  for  in  this  world,  it  is  vital  religion.  This 
principle  will  survive  all  disputes  about  its  forms,  Eind  live  forever  ;  and,  hence, 
he  who  neglects  this  in  his  engagedness  about  the  form  of  baptism,  is  guilty  of 
undervaluing  what  is  of  infinitely  greater  worth  than  all  the  outward  ceremonies 
of  piety,  devised  by  man,  or  instituted  by  God^ 


^.^- 


SERMON  V. 


SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM. 

JBREMIA.H  XXX,  20.=-"  Tlieir  children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime,  and  their 
congregation  shall  be  established  before  me." 

The  words  of  the  text  are  prospective.  They  belong  to  a  prophecy  which  re- 
spects the  state  of  the  Jews  under  the  Gospel  Dispensation,  when  they  shall 
again  be  grafted  into  their  own  Olive  tree  from  which  they  were  broken  off  by 
unbelief.  This  is  evident  from  verses  8  and  9.  "  For  it  shall  come  to  pass  in 
that  day,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  that  I  will  break  his  yoke  from  off  thy  neck, 
and  will  burst  thy  bonds,  and  strangers  shall  no  more  serve  themselves  of  him, 
but  they  shall  serve  the  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  king,  whom  I  will  raise 
up  unto  them." 

By  David  their  king,  Christ  is  meant ;  for  he  is  called  David  in  the  parallel 
prophecies,  (Ezek.  xxxiv,  23,  24  ;  xxxvii,  24  ;  Hosea,  iii,  5.)  Jeremiah,  more= 
over,  lived  several  centuries  after  the  death  of  King  David,  and  of  course  must 
have  had  reference  in  this  prophecy,  to  him  of  whom  David  was  a  type,  viz  :  to 
Christ.  Furthermore,  the  deliverance  predicted,  or  promised  in  these  passages, 
has  not  yet  been  granted,  for  the  yoke  has  not  been  broken  from  off  the  neck  of 
Israel,  and  strangers  have  not  ceased  to  serve  themselves  of  him.  The  Jews 
have  been  in  a  state  of  subjection  to  other  nations  since  the  coming  of  Christ. 
They  were  at  length  entirely  subdued  by  the  Romans,  and  vi^idely  dispersed,  and 
since  that  time  almost  all  nations  have  served  themselves  of  this  scattered  peo- 
ple. The  prophecy  of  which  this  text  forms  a  part,  must  therefore  refer  to  the 
future,  to  a  time  under  the  Christian  Dispensation,  when  the  Jews  will  be  con- 
verted and  restored  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Church  of  Christ 

■  When  this  shall  take  place,  '*  their  children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime  ;"  that 
is,  they  shall  be  included  in  the  covenant  of  God  with  his  people,  and  the  token 
of  the  covenant  shall  be  applied  to  them.  This  is  the  condition  they  were  in 
aforetime.  The  text  consequently  asserts  the  continuance  of  the  connection  be- 
tween parents  and  children  under  the  New  Testament  Dispensation,  which  for- 
merly existed  under  the  Old.  Household  consecration  was  practiced  aforetime. 
The  pious  Jew  consecrated  his  family  to  God,  and  as  he  is  assured  that  his  chil- 
dren shall  be  as  aforetime  under  the  Gospel  Dispensation,  of  course  when  he 
shall  be  converted,  he  must  dedicate  his  children  to  God.  But  how  can  he  do 
this,  except  the  practice  of  Household  consecration  exists  in  the  Christian 
Church.    A  Church  denying  infant  baptism,  and  neglecting  household  conse- 


63 

cratioiii  would  not  afford  his  children  the  privileges  enjoyed  by  Jewish  children 
aforetime.  Hence,  it  is  not  into  such  a  Church  that  the  Jews  will  be  grafted 
when  they  embrace  the  Christian  faith.  It  must  be  a  pee  do  baptist  Church; 
otherwise  the  prediction  will  remain  unfulfilled,  and  the  promise  must  fall  to  the 
ground,  that  their  children  shall  be  as  aforetime.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that 
household  consecration  enters  into  the  very  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church 
— and  if  so,  then  of  course  it  ia  the  duty  of  Christian  parents  to  dedicate  their 
children  to  God  by  baptism. 

Between  us  and  the  Iramersionalists,  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  on  thia 
subject.  They  contend  that  adults  only  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  while 
we  affirm  that  the  privilege  belongs  also  to  the  infant  children  of  all  who  make  a 
creditable  profession  of  evangelical  faith  and  repentance.  We  shall  now  call 
your  attention  to  the  arguments  in  favor  of  infant  baptism. 

1.  That  the  infant  children  of  pious  parents  are  entitled  to  baptism,  appears 
from  the  oneness  of  the  Church  under  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Dispensations. 
The  Abrahamic  or  Jewish  Church  is  substantially  continued  in  the  Christian. 
The  prophets  under  the  Old  Testament,  in  all  their  predictions  respecting  the 
future  prevalence  of  religion,  do  not  once  allude  to  the  erection  of  a  new  church 
in  the  world,  but  speak  of  Zion,  of  Israel  as  enlarged  by  the  bringing  in  of  the 
Gentiles.  "  It  is  Zion  ;  it  is  Jerusalem  that  arises  and  shines  ;  her  light  being 
come;  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  being  risen  upon  her.  The  Gentiles  shall 
come  to  her  light,  and  Kings  to  the  brightness  of  ^her  rising :  all  they  gather 
themselves  and  come  to  thee.''  These  declarations  plainly  shew  that  the  proph- 
ets contemplated  the  Gospel  Church  with  its  enlarged  privileges  and  numbers,  as 
the  ancient  Zion  continued.  If  so,  infant  baptism  follows  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence. For  it  wag  an  original  appointment  of  the  Church,  that  the  infant  chil- 
dren of  professing  parents  should  receive  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  it,  and  be- 
come entitled  to  its  privileges.  This  appointment  has  not  been  annulled  or  al- 
tered. It  remains  in  full  force  ;  and,  hence,  infants  are  still  entitled  to  that  or- 
dinance which  is  the  token  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  his  Church. 

The  Apostle  Paul,  in  several  instances,  distinctly  maintained  the  oneness  or 
identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Church.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
ii,  14,  he  says,  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken 
down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us."  We  learn  from  the  context, 
that  the  words  (^botli,  and  us,)  refer  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  ceremonial 
law  which  commanded  the  Jews  to  observe  numerous  outward  ordinances  that 
vcere  typical  of  Christ,  was  a  partition  wall  between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
This  law  was  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and  the  seperation  which  it  occasioned  was  re- 
moved by  his  death,  "  for  he  is  our  peace,  having  made  peace  by  the  blood  of  hia 
cross."  The  breaking  down  of  the  partition  wall,  brings  the  Jews  and  Gentiles 
together  and  made  both  one.  Hence,  it  appears  that  the  Church,  at  the  calling 
of  the  Gentiles,  was  not  dissolved,  but  remained.  The  Jews  and  Gentiles  were 
made  one  by  the  removal  of  the  partition  wall.  The  inference,  therefore,  fol- 
lows that  infants  are  entitled  to  baptism.  For  they  hold  the  same  place  in  the 
church  composed  of  Gentiles  and  Jews,  that  they  held  in  the  church  when  com- 
posed only  of  Jews,  because  they   constituted   a  portion  of  the  members  of  the 


04 

eharch  to  which  the  Gentiles  were  united  ;  no  change  being  effected  in  that 
church,  except  in  its  form  ;  in  principle  and  substance  it  remained  the  same. 

Again,  in  Romans  xi,  17,  the  Apostle  speaking  to  the  Gentiles  in  reference  to 
the  Jews  who  were  rejected  from  the  Church,  on  account  of  unbelief,  says: 
"and  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou  being  a  wild  Olive  tree, 
wert  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  partakost  of  the  root  and  fatness  of 
the  Olive  tree  ;  boast  not  thyself  against  the  branches."  Peter  Edwards  re- 
marks on  this  passage  ;  "  The  Olive  tree  denotes  the  visible  church,  Jer.  xi,  16  : 
Hosea,  xiv,  6,  By  the  branches,  some  of  which  were  broken  off,  and  some  remain- 
ed unbroken,  is  denoted  the  members  of  the  visible  church.  The  wild  Olive  tree 
represents  the  Gentiles,  who  were  called  of  God,  and  grafted  in  among  iho 
branches  which  were  left  as  a  remnant,  and  united  to  them. 

The  following  conclusions  follow  from  these  propositions. 

1.  There  is  no  discontinuance  of  the  ancient  visible  church.  In  essence,  it 
still  remains.  It  was  not  broken  down  and  destroyed.  Some  of  the  branches  of 
the  Olive  tree  were  broken  off,  and  the  Gentiles  were  engrafted  into  their  place." 
The  Immersionalists  say  that  the  branches  broken  off  were  trom  the  Christian 
Church.  But  the  branches  broken  off  were  the  unbelieving  Jews  who  never  be- 
longed to  that  Church.  Hence,  it  was  the  ancient  visible  church  from  which 
some  of  the  branches  of  the  Olive  tree  were  broken  off. 

2.  "The  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles  did  not  constitute  a  new  church.  They 
were  called  in,  and  admitted  into  a  church  already  established.  They  were  graft- 
ed into  the  Olive  tree  which  had  not  all  its  branches  broken  off. 

3.  Infant  membership  was  allowed  in  the  Apostolical  times.  All  the  branch- 
es of  the  Olive  tree  were  not  broken  off;  i.  c.  there  was  a  remnant  of  tiie  mem- 
bers of  the  ancient  Cluirch  left.  The  members  of  that  church  were  composed 
of  infants  and  adults,  and  consequently  infants  were  included  in  this  remnant  ; 
for  it  must  have  been  composed  of  just  such  individuals  as  composed  the  entire 
Hebrew  Church.  And,  if  included  in  this  remnant,  then  they  vvere  admitted  into 
the  Gospel  Church.  For,  if  we  affirm  that  the  ancient  visible  church  was  dis- 
solved and  not  continued  in  the  Christian,  then  we  affirm  against  the  obvious 
import  of  this  passage  of  Scripture,  and  .so  against  the  word  of  God  ;  and  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  admit  that  the  Hebrew  Church  was  continued  in  the  Christ- 
ian, and  that  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  in  it  thus  continued,  then  we  must  allow 
that  infant  membership  was  permitted  by  the  Apostles." 

This  argument  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ers are  recognized  in  the  New  Testament  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  the 
Christian  Church  that  the  infant  seed  of  pious  Jews  sustained  to  the  Abrahamic 
or  Jewish  Church.  This  statement  is  warranted  by  the  following  passages  of 
Scripture.  Mark  x,  13,  16.  ''And  they  brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he 
should  touch  them  ;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them.  But 
when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them,  suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;    for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 


65 

God.  Verily,  1  eay  unto  you,  whoaoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God 
as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  tliem  up  in  his  arms, 
put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  hlessed  them."  Peter  Edwards  remarks  on  theaa 
words':  "  Our  inquiry  is,  what  kingdom  did  our  Lord  mean  1  Was  it  the  church, 
or  a  state  of  glory  1  If  the  Lord  meant  the  church,  then  he  has  asserted  that 
infants  were  spoken  of  by  him,  as  members  of  the  church  ;  and,  therefore,  the 
fact  is  established.  But  the  Immersionalists  in  general  understand  this  of  a 
state  of  glory,  and  allow  infants  to  belong  to  that,  but  deny  that  they  belong  to 
the  Church.  This,  indeed,  is  granting  the  greater,  and  denying  the  less  ;  and 
therefore  an  argument  may  be  taken,  from  what  they  grant,  to  destroy  what  they 
deny  ;  that  is,  an  argument  from  the  greater  to  the  less.  Besides,  as  tiie  insti- 
tution of  the  Church  is  a  dispensation  of  God,  which  leads  to  glory;  it  is  absurd 
to  grant  persons  a  place  in  glory,  and  at  the  same  time  deny  them  a  place  in 
that  dispensation  which  leads  to  it." 

To  escape  this  argument,  the  Immersionalists  lay  hold  of  the  phrase  ^^  of  such," 
and  affirm  that  our  Lord  meant  "adults  of  a  childlike  disposition,  and  that  of  these, 
and  not  of  the  infants  he  said,  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  But  if  this  is 
the  meaning,  then  the  Saviour  offered  as  a  reason  for  permitting  children  to 
come  to  him  to  receive  his  blessing,  "  that  persons  not  children,  but  who  were  of 
a  childlike  disposition,  were  the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."?  Thug, 
the  reason  for  permitting  tliem  to  come  to  him,  was  not  the  fact  that  they  had 
childlike  dispositions  themselves,  but  because  some  adults  had  such  dispositions' 
But  if  adults  of  such  dispositions  were  entitled  to  his  blessing,  and  belonged  to 
his  kingdom,  why  were  not  children  whom  these  adults  resembled  1  What  a 
sorry  reason  to  give  for  permitting  children  to  come  to  him,  "  suffer  these  chil- 
dren to  come  to  me,  because  those  adults  who  are  like  children  belong  to_the 
kingdom  of  God." 

The  evident  import  of  this  declaration  is,  that  young  children  are  the  subjecta 
of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  if  so,  tiiere  is  no  diminution  of  their  privileges  under 
the  New  Testament  Dispensation,  They  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  that  they  did  to  the  Jewish,  and  hence,  the  Christian  is  only  the 
Jewish  Church  in  its  substance  and  principle  continued. 

Acts  ii,  38,  39.  "Then  Peter  said,  repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you, 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to 
all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  The  thing 
here  promised  to  parents  and  children  is  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  this 
promise  was  originally  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  when  God  engaged  to  bo 
a  God  to  iiim  and  his  seed  after  him,  for  the  Apostle  Paul  says.  Gal.  iii,  14,  that 
that  general  promise  included  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  it  is  here  said 
that  this  promise  (including  the  things  contained  in  it)  is  extended  to  believers 
and  their  children  under  the  Gospel,  and  with  this  promise  is  connected  baptism. 
Infants,  therefore,  are  placed  in  the  same  relation  to  baptism  that  they  were  be- 
fore to  circumcision.  Siiall  they  not  then  be  baptized,  since  it  is  plain  that  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  Church  are  the  same  in  relation  to  Parents  and   Childrerp 

9 


66 

tn  1  Cor.  vii,  14,  it  is  asserted,  "  The  unbelieviug  husband  is  sanctified  bj'  the 
wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  To  be  holy,  as  here  used,  is  the  converse 
of  being  unclean  ;  and  denotes  that  which  may  be  offered  to  God.  To  be  sanc- 
tified, as  referring  to  the  objects  here  mentioned,  ie  to  be  seperated  for  religious 
purposes;  consecrated  to  God ;  as  were  the  first  born  and  vessels  of  the  temple  ; 
or,  to  be  in  a  proper  condition  to  appear  before  God.  In  this  text,  it  denotes  that 
the  unbeMeving  parent  is  co  purified  by  means  of  his  relation  to  the  believing  pa- 
rent, that  their  mutual  offspring  are  not  unclean,*  but  may  be  offered  to  God. 
There  is  no  other  sense  in  which  a  Jew  could  have  written  this  text,  without 
gome  qualification  of  these  words.  The  only  appointed  way  in  which  children 
may  bo  offered  to  God,  is  baptism.  The  children  of  believing  parents  are,  there- 
fore, to  be  offered  to  God  in  baptism." 

To  evade  the  force  of  this  interpretation.  Dr.  Gill  invented  the  following  in- 
terpretation :  "  Else  were  your  children  illegitimate,  but  now  are  they  legitimate.^' 
He  did  not  pretend  that  the  Greek  words  would  bear  such  an  interpretation,  but 
to  sustain  it  had  recourse  to  the  Rabinnical  Hebrew.  There  is,  in  fact,  no 
Greek  author,  sacred  or  profane,  who  use  the  words  dKadapra  &  ayia{dka-ihar-ta 
and  ag-i-a)  in  the  sense  of  illegitimate  and  legitimate. 

Mr,  Carson  labors  hard  to  sustain  this  interpretation,  but  with  evident  dissat- 
isfaction at  the  result,  for  he  could  find  no  author  among  the  Greek  writers  from 
Homer  to  Porphyry  who  gave  him  their  support.  Hence,  he  exclaims  (p  334) 
"But  if  any  will  choose  to  understand  the  passage  otherwise,  let  them  have  it  in 
their  own  way.  In  no  view  of  it,  can  it  countenance  the  baptism  of  infants  or 
unbelievers.  If  such  infants  were  even  as  holy  as  the  infant  John  the  Baptist,  it 
would  not  imply  their  baptism.  They  may  possess  the  holiness  that  will  fit  them 
for  heaven  without  entitling  them  to  baptism.  Baptism  is  for  believere  and  only 
for  believers." 

This  is  an  extraordinary  assertion,  that  infants  should  not  be  baptized  even  if 
they  possessed  holiness  that  would  fit  them  for  heavpn.  Strange  inconsistency, 
not  to  admit  those  who  have  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  viz  :  holines?,  to  the 
rito  itself.  On  what  other  ground  but  this  is  it  that  the  Imraersionalists  baptize 
adults  1  Is  it  not  that  they  possess  holiness  ?  Certainly ;  it  is  not  that  they 
merely  profess  to  have  repented  and  believed,  but  that  as  penitent  believers  they 
possess  a  holy  character  ?  If  it  is  not  this,  what  is  it ;  and  why  is  it  that  the 
Immersionalists  contend  against  the  baptism  of  infants,  if  adults  may  be  admit- 
ted to  baptism  without  being  considered  true  Christians  ?  If  they  may,  why 
may  not  children  1 


*"  The  word  unclean,  in  almost  all  instances,  in  the  Scriptures,  denotes  that 
which  may  not  be  offered  to  God,  or  may  not  come  into  his  Temple." — Dutch 
Annotations  '■'•  For  otherwise  your  children  were  unclean,"  that  is,  strangers  from 
God's  covenant  as  is  testified  of  the  unbelieving  Gentiles  and  their  seed,  Eph. 
ii,  12.  "  BxU  now  are  they  holy,''  that  is,  are  comprehended  in  the  outward  cov- 
enant of  God,  and  have  access  to  the  signs  and  seals  of  God's  grace,  as  well  as 


m 

It  is  evident  from  the  commission  to  baptize  all  nation?,  that  the  Jewish  and 
Cliristian  Church  are  essentially  the  same.  Math  xxviii,  19,  20 — "  Go  ye  there- 
fore, and  teach  (Greek,  make  disciples  of,)  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  tlie  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  tho  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  These  words  iuclado 
infants. 

This  is  a  command  to  disciple,  lapdze  and  teach  all  rations.  Now,  little  chil. 
dren  are  a  part  of  all  nations.  But  all  nations  are  to  be  discipled,  baptized  and 
taught.  Therefore,  little  childred  are  to  be  discipled,  baptized  and  taught.  Again. 
The  order  of  the  words  makes  baptism  to  precede  teaching.  The  direction  ia 
to  "  baptize,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you."  Teaching  is  represented  as  subsequent  to  baptism,  therefore  (reasoning 
on  the  principles  of  the  Immersionalists,)  little  children  are  first  to  he  baptized, 
and  afterwards  to  be  taught. 

But  say  they  Mark  adds,  (chap,  xvi,  16,)  "  he  that  believeth  and  ia  baptized, 
shall  be  saved."  "  Here  our  Lord  teaches  us  that  faith  precedes  baptism  as  a 
prerequisite.  But  little  children  cannot  believe  ;  therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
baptized  until  they  are  capable  of  faith." 

To  this  we  reply,  if  Mark  refers  to  little  children  at  all,  the  meaning  of  the 
passage  must  be,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  (i.  e.  already)  baptized,  shall  be  sa- 
ved." For  if  it  is  understood  as  the  Immersionalists  interpret  it,  it  makes  bap-, 
tism  a  prerequisite  of  salvation,  and  teaches  infant  damnation, — doctrines  which 
are  not  found  in  the  word  of  God.  The  word  baptize  goes  before  the  word  sa- 
ved, just  as  the  word  believe  goes  before  the  word  baptize.  Now,  if  no  one  can  be 
baptized  without  first  believing,  because  the  word  believe  precedes  the  word  bap- 
tize, it  follows  by  parity  of  reasoning  that  no  one  can  be  saved  without  first  be- 
ing baptized,  because  the  word  baptize  precedes  the  word  saved.  Hence,  if  it 
excludes  infants  from  baptism  because  they  are  incapable  of  believing,  it  debars 
them  from  salvation  likewise,  because  they  have  not  been  baptized.  Thus  all  un- 
baptized  children  dying  such,  must  be  damned  for  not  having  received  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  of  which  Christ  himself  according  to  the  doctrine  of  these 
men  has  declared  them  incapable. 

2.  That  the  infant  children  of  believing  parents  are  entitled  to  baptism,  ap- 
pears from  the  fact  that  the  Apostles  baptized  families. 

There  are  several  such  families  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  viz :  the 
household  of  Cornelius,  Stephanus,  Lydia,  and  the  Jailor  at  Phillippi.  These 
households  are  designated  by  the  word  oIkos  (oikos)  which  most  properly  means  a 
family  composed  exclusively  of  a  man's  children,  offspring  or  descendenta.— 
These  households  are  said  also  to  be  baptized  in  connection  with  the  head  of  the 
family,  and  in  two  cases  where  only  the  faith  of  the  head  is  mentioned  as  will 
appear  in  the  sequel.  "  Having  thus  the  unquestionable  fact  of  the  baptism  of 
families,  a  fact  according  with  the  ancient  practice  of  the  circumcision  of  familiesj 
and  supported  by  the  use  of  a  word  that  properly  denotes  a  man's  children,  we 
are  warranted  to  assume,  that  these  caasg  furnish  instances  of  baptism  of  the 


68 

children  of  believing  parents,"  unless  the  Immersionalists  can  shew  that  thera 
were  adults  only  in  these  households. 

This  they  contend  can  be  done,  and  they  assert  accordingly  that  they  were  com- 
posed entirely  of  adults.  la  respect  to  Lydia  and  her  family  they  state,  that  she 
resided  at  Thyatira,  but  that  she  was  sojourning  temporally  at  Phitippi  for  the 
purpose  of  selling  purple  ;  that  she  had  journoyinen  dyers  in  her  employment 
who  composed  her  family,  that  these  workmen  were  converted  by  the  preaching 
of  Paul  and  his  associates,  and  that  they  were  the  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Sila^ 
found  at  her  house  when  they  were  released  from  prison. 

Many  persons,  and  some  belonging  to  Psedobaptist  Churches,  believe  that  thia 

statement  contains  the  very  facts  in  the  case  ;  but  nearly  the  whole  of  it,  how- 
ever, is  made  up  out  of  suppositions  that  have  no  foundation  whatever  in  the  nar- 
rative. In  Acts  svi,  13,  15,  Luke,  the  writer  of  Acts  says,  "And  on  the  Sab- 
bath we,  {Luke,  Paul,  Silas  and  Timothy,  see  Actsxvi,  1,  4.  Phil,  i,  24,)  went 
out  of  the  city  by  the  river  side  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made  ;  and  we  sat 
down,  and  spake  to  the  women,  (not  males  lor  there  were  none  present;)  which 
resorted  thither.  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the 
city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped  God  heard  us ;  whose  heart  the  Lord  open- 
ed that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  slis 
was  baptized  and  her  household,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to 
be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and  abide  there,  and  she  constrained 
MS."  That  is,  her  urgent  entreaties  compelled  us  to  comply  with  her  invitation, 
and  we  made  her  house  our  place  of  residence  svhile  we  continued  at  Philippi. 

The  things  stated  in  this  narrative  are  the  following.  1.  Paul  and  his  com- 
panions on  this  occasion  preached  the  word  to  females  only.  There  were  no 
males  in  the  assembly,  "  for  they  spake  unto  the  women  which  resortfid  thither." 
2.  One  woman  only  believed  and  was  converted  at  that  time.  The  Lord  opened 
the  heart  of  Lydia,  "  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of 
Paul."  3.  This  single  female  and  her  family  were  baptized  together,  they  being 
baptized  on  her  faith  as  not  one  of  them,  is  said  to  have  believed.  "  And  when 
she  was  baptized  and  her  household."  Lydia  originated  from  the  city  of  Thya- 
tira but  now  lived  at  Philippi  with  her  family  ;  where  she  had  a  house,  in  which 
she  lodged  the  Apostles  for  sometime.  Tlie  declaration  that  she  was  a  woman 
of  Thyatira  is  of  the  same  import  with  the  expression  ,  "  Saul  of  Tg^rsus,"  "  I 
am  a  man  which  am  a  Jew  of  Tarsus,  a  city  of  Cilicia,^'  &c.  This  language 
was  used  merely  to  denote  that  Tarsus  was  the  birth-place  of  Paul,  not  his  place 
of  residence.  So  the  declaration  that  Lydia  was  a  woman  of  Thyatira  means 
that  that  city  was  her  birth-place,  she  originated  there.  *  Thus  it  appears  that 
Lydia  resided  permanently  at  Philippi,  had  a  house  there,  in  which  she  lodged 
Paul  and  his  associates,  Silas,  Luke,  and  Timothy. 

After  thoy  had  remained  in  her  house  for  a  season,  Paul  and  Silas  were  appre- 
hended by  the  magistrates  and  shut  up  in  prison,  but  Luke  and  Timotliv  were 
suffered  to  continue  unmolested  at  Lydia's  house.     When  they   were  released 

*  Dutch  Annotations.    "  Lydia  was  of  Thyatira  by  birih," 


69 

from  their  imprisonment,  ihey  wished  of  course  to  see  Luke  and  Timothy.  A.. 
mong  other  reasons  which  rendered  an  interview  necessary,  was  their  excited 
state,  and  their  need  of  counsel  and  encouragement,  for  they  were  undoubtedly 
anxious  and  perplexed  in  consequence  of  tlie  treatment  which  Paul  and  SiliiF, 
their  elder  brethren  had  received  from  the  magistrates  of  Philippi.  Hence,  they 
went  to  Lydia's  house,  where  Luke  and  Timotljy  lodged,  and  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren  (Luke  and  TimoUiy)  they  irap-rvaXcjai/  (pare-kal-e-san)  exhorted 
encouraged  them,  and  departed.  Tliat  i?,  they  spake  words  of  consoktion  cal- 
culated tocheer  and  fill  them  with  courage,  and  as  they  had  not  excited  the  sus- 
picion of  tiie  magistrates  of  Philippi,  and  there  was  no  reason  to  apprehend  an 
excitement  on  their  account  if  they  should  continue  in  the  city,  they  therefore  ex= 
horted  them  to  remain  after  their  departure,  to  take  care  of  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion which  had  now  gained  a  foothold  in  the  families  of  Lydia  and  the  Jailor. 

This  they  accordingly  did.  For  Paul  and  Silag  departed  and  passed  through 
several  cities,  and  at  Berea  were  joined  by  Timothy,  but  Luke  staid  at  Philippi 
until  Paul  revisited  that  place  on  his  way  into  Asia.  Acts  xx,  6.  We  arrive  at 
this  conclusion  in  the  following  way.  The  pronoun  we  is  used  in  Acts  xvi, 
which  shews  that  Luke  the  writer  of  Acts,  included  himself.  This  pronoun  is 
substituted  by  the  pronouns  he  or  ihey  in  the  following  chapters,  shewing  that 
Luke  was  not  in  the  company  of  his  companions.  But  in  chapter  xx,  verse  P, 
the  word  we  again  appears,  shewing  that  Luke  had  become  associated  wiih 
Paul.  It  seems  from  the  narrative,  that  Paul  revisited  Philippi  on  his  way  into 
Asia,  and  that  he  took  Luke  with  him  from  that  place.  For  Luke  says  that  tliere 
accompanied  Paul  into  Asia,  Sopaler,  Aristarchus,  Secundus,  Gains,  Tiinotlieus., 
Tychicus  and  Trophimus.  These  going  before,  tarried  for  tjs  at  Troffs.  And 
we  fsays  Luke  including  himself  and  Paul)  sailed  away  from  Philippi  after  the 
days  of  unleavened  bread,  and  came  unto  them  at  Troas,"  &c.  The  next  verse 
relates  that  Paul  preached  at  Troas.  Paul,  therefore,  was  in  tlie  company  that 
sailed  from  Philippi  to  Troas.  Hence,  the  statement  of  this  matter  by  the  Im- 
mersionalists,  that  Lydia  was  a  pedler  belonging  to  Thyatira,  and  on  a  pedling 
excursion  to  Philippi,  having  journeymen  dyers  in  her  employment  ;  that  tticsj 
composed  her  household,  and  were  the  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Silas  saw  at 
her  house  when  they  were  released  from  prison,  is  from  beginning  to  end,  a  mere 
supposition.  It  is  probably  all  made  out  of  the  fact  that  Paul  and  Silas  saw 
brethren  at  Lydia's  house,  for  it  is  no  where  said,  intimated  or  implied,  that  she 
had  journeymen  in  her  employment,  or  that  any  men  or  women  beside  herself 
were  converted  and  baptized  when  she  and  her  family  received  that  ordinance. 
The  naked  fact,  then,  that  Brethren  were  seen  at  her  house,  does  not  prove  that 
they  belonged  to  her  family.  They  might  have  been  persons  converted  to  the 
Christian  faith  by  the  labors  of  Paul  and  Silas  in  the  city,  and  who  met  there  as 
the  most  likely  place  to  see  them  when  they  were  released  from  imprisonment, 
since  they  had_lodged  there  before  their  confinement.  This  would  be  the  modt 
natural  and  probable  supposition  if  we  had  no  other  way  to  determine  who  these 
brethren  were,  because  it  is  not  customary  nor  economical  for  persons  engaged 
in  the  business  o^ dyeing,  or  any  other  employment  in  which  the  assistance  of 
other  persons  is  necessary,  to  take  their  workmen  with  them  on  their  trading  ex- 
cursions.    They  generally  keep  their  journeymen  at  homo  at  work,   while   they 


ro 

go  out  alone  for  the  purpose  of  trade.  If  Lydia,  therefore,  resided  at  Thyatira, 
and  carried  on  her  business  there,  it  is  most  proper  to  suppose  that  her  journey- 
inen  were  at  Thyatira  and  not  at  Philippi. 

But,  if  it  is  still  contended  that  these  brethren  were  her  workmen,  then  they 
were  certainly  baptized  on  her  faith.  Her  family  was  baptized  on  her  faith — 
these  workmen  composed  her  family  ;  therefore  they  were  baptized  on  her  faith. 

In  reference  to  the  family  of  the  Jailor,  the  Immersionalists  tell  us  that  it  is 
embarrassed  by  the  fact  that  it  is  said  that  Paul  ana  Silas  "  Spake  liie  word  of 
the  Lord  unto  hi(n  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,  and  that  he  rejoiced,  believ- 
in  God  with  all  his  house."  On  this  passage,  we  offer  the  following  remarks. 
1.  The  activity  of  the  Jailor  renders  it  probable  that  he  was  in  the  vigor  of  life. 
His  hastiness  of  purpose  to  kill  himself, — his  calling  for  a  light  and  springing  in 
the  prison,  do  not  very  well  comport  with  the  moderation  of  old  age.  If  the 
Jailor  was  a  young  man,  or  a  rnan  of  middle  age,  it  is  possible  that  he  had  a  fam- 
ily of  young  children.  2.  The  expressions  omos,  rravoiKi.  oi  avrov  navra,  (oi-kos, 
pan-oi-ki,  oi,  au-iou,  pmi-tes,)  translated  ''  house,  all  his  house,  and  all  his,"  mean 
a  family  of  children,  and  such  as  were  at  his  own  disposal  and  under  his  own 
control. 

Panoiki  is  used  in  Exodus  i,  1,  to  denote  a  man's  own  family.  Now,  these 
are  the  names  of  the  children  of  Israel  who  came  into  Egypt,  every  man  {pan-oi- 
ki)  with  all  his  house,  i.  e.  his  own  personal  family. 

Oi  auiou  panics,  •'  and  all  his,"  is  an  expression  which  excludes  alljpersons 
who  were  not  under  the  control  and  at  the  disposal  of  the  Jailor.  Hence,  it  lim- 
its the  persons  baptized  to  his  own  personal  family,  to  his  children.  These  ex- 
pressions render  it  very  probable  that  the  Jailor  had  a  family  of  little  children. 

3.  The  gracious  connection  between  the  faith  of  parents  and  children  which 
Paul  and  Silas  assert,  and  which  they  present  to  the  Jailor  as  a  motive  to  induce 
him  to  embrace  the  Christian  faith,  impZ?es  that  he  had  a  family  of  children  who 
were  still  minors.  "  And  they  said  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  and  thou  shalt  be 
eaved,  and  thy  house."  Why  did  they  say  this,  if  his  faith  had  no  inSucnce  up- 
on the  moral  character  of  his  children  ?  Why  did  they  say  this,  if  he  had  no  chil- 
dren, or  if  he  had  children  of  such  an  age  that  they  were  no  longer  under  his  con- 
trol? How  could  the  blessing  of  salvation  come  upon  his  family  through  his 
faith,  if  he  had  no  young  children  ?  What  inducement  or  motive  had  the  Apos- 
tles to  speak  of  his  faith  having  influence  upon  his  household,  if  there  was  no 
connection  between  parents  and  children  in  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 

4.  But  that  he  actually  had  a  family  of  little  children  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  the  Jailor  was  the  only  person  who  believed,  and  consequently  his  family 
must  have  been  baptized  on  his  faith.  We  do  not  like  very  well  to  find  fault 
with  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures.  In  general,  it  is  accurate,  but  it  sometimes 
fails,  it  must  be  confessed,  to  convoy  the  exact  idea  of  the  original.  There  is 
a  failure  of  this  kind,  we  apprehend,  in  the  rendering  of  the  passage,  "  and  he  re- 
joiced, believing  in  God  with  all  his  house."     Tha  idea  here  is  that  all  the  fami- 


71 

]y  of  the  Jailor  believed.  This  meaning  is  oriven  to  tlje  passage  by  placing  the 
words,  "with  all  his  house,"  after  the  participle  beliving,  which  is  in  the  singu- 
lar number,  and  which  refers  to  the  Jailor  and  not  to  his  family.  Now,  in  the 
original,  the  words  "with  all  his  house"  go  before  the  participle  believing,  and 
stand  connected  with  the  word  "  rejoiced,"  and  if  rendered  as  they  stand  con- 
nected in  the  original,  the  passage  would  read  thus  : 

Kal  iiyaXAtaf«ro  ttovoIxi  TtTrifTfuxwf  Tto  6cco.  |  "  he  set  meat  before  them  and  rejoiced 
with  all  his  house,  he  having  believed  in  God. 

This  gives  another  idea  to  the  sentence.  It  regards  the  Jailor  as  the  only  be- 
liever, and  makes  liis  joy  and  that  of  his  family  not  to  arise  from  the  fact  that 
now  they  were  all  converted,  but  that  they  were,  as  a  family,  by  means  of  his 
faith  and  their  baptism,  brought  into  that  gracious  connection  with  God,  which 
the  Apostles  assured  him  should  follow  his  faith  when  they  said,  "  Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house." 

This  was  a  matter  ealculated  to  produce  joy,  not  only  in  his  own  [raind,  but  al- 
so in  his  family.  And  that  they  in  some  measure  understood  it  we  have  assu- 
rance, for  the  Apostles  spake  the  same  things  to  his  family  that  they  did  to  hiir. 
"  They  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house." 
Now,  what  they  spake  particularly  to  him,  we  learn  from  the  preceding  verse, 
it  concerned  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  gracious  connection  between 
parents  and  children  in  the  covenant  of  God,  by  which  the  faith  of  the  parent 
may  be  rendered  the  means  or  instrument  of  the  salvation  of  the  children.  Very 
young  children  might  get  some  idea  of  these  things,  and  hence  it  was  very  prop- 
er to  instruct  them,  that  they  might  know  that  now  they  were  a  family  devoted 
to  God,  and  were  bound  to  abstain  from  the  worship  of  false  gods  and  the  idola- 
trous practices  of  their  friends  and  others  around  them. 

It  has  been  objected  that  this  could  not  have  been  a  family  of  small  children, 
because  their  baptism  was  performed  in  the  night,  "  and  it  must  have  been  very 
difficult  to  have  taken  them  out  of  their  beds  in  the  middle  of  the  night,  and  to 
have  baptized  them."  On  the  supposition  that  they  were  sleeping  quietly  pre- 
viously, the  objection  would  be  weighty.  But  there  is  no  necessity  for  suppo. 
sing  that  they  were  taken  out  of  their  beds,  as  the  earthquake  which  shook  the 
prison  to  its  centre  and  threw  open  its  doors,  unquestionably  roused  the  family  of 
the  Jailor,  and  filled  them  with  a  terror  which  drove  slumber  from  their  eyes, 
and  produced  a  consternation  which  demanded  the  presence  and  exhortations  of 
the  Apostles  to  calm  and  remove. 

The  family  of  Stephanus  (I  Cor.  i,  16,)  the  Immersionalists  contend  must  have 
been  a  family  of  adults  when  baptized,  because  it  is  said  (I  Cor.  xvi,  15,)  they 
have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  But  that  does  not  ne- 
cessarily follow.  They  may  have  been  a  family  of  minors  when  baptized,  and 
afterwards,  at  a  subsequent  period,  have  "  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of 
the  saints."  Paul  does  not  tell  us  whether  there  were  any  believing  persons  in 
this  family  or  not,  nor  does  he  give  us  any  clue  to  the  respective  ages  of  the 
members  of  that  family  when  they  were  baptized.  He  merely  says,  "  And  I  bap^ 


72 

tized  also  the  household  of  Stephanus  ;  besides  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized 
any  other." 

3.  The  history  of  infant  baptism  establishes  the  lawfulness  of  the  practice,  be- 
cause it  proves  that  it  has  always  been  allowed  in  the  Christian  Church. 

In  tracing  the  history  of  infant  baptism  from  the  Apostles  down  to  the  pres. 
cnt  time,  we  will  begin  with  the  age  of  Augustine,  when  it  is  admitted  even  by 
the  Immersionalists,  it  extensively  prevailed.  *  Augustine  was  the  pastor  of  a 
Church  in  Northern  Africa,  a  country  then  filled  with  a  Christian  population. — 
He  was  one  of  the  most  profound  theologians,  and  ablest  defenders  of  the  Chris- 
tian cause  in  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  He  was  born  A.  D.  354,  about  254  years 
after  the  Apostolic  age,  and  consequently  he  lived  50  years  nearer  that  age  than 
we  do  to  the  commencement  of  the  glorious  reformation  under  Luther. 

Passages  without  number  might  be  cited  from  his  writings  to  shew  that  infant 
baptism  was  an  established  usage  of  the  Church.  He  says  ;  "  the  custom  of  our 
mother  church  in  baptizing  little  children,  is  by  no  means  to  be  disregarded,  nor 
accounted  as  in  any  measure  superfluous.  Neither,  indeed,  is  it  to  be  regarded 
as  any  other  than  a.n  apostolical  tradition."  This  he  also  declares  "the  whole 
church  maintains,  not  instituted  by  councils,  but  always  observed."  In  another 
place,  speakinjr  of  the  Pelagians,  he  says  :  "they  grant  that  infants  must  be  bap- 
tized, as  not  being  able  to  resist  the  authority  of  Lhe  whole  church,  which  icas  doubt- 
less delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles." 

Now,  Augustine  lived  nearer  the  Apostolical  age  than  we  do  to  the  age  of  Lu- 
tlier.  But,  liow  familiar  are  we  with  the  history  'of  the  times  in  which  that 
groat  and  good  rnan  flourished.  The  fierce  wars,  and  desolating  persecutions 
which  have  taken  place  since,  though  they  have  deluged  Europe  with  blood, 
liave  not  destroyed  the  monuments  and  records  of  the  glorious  reformation  from 
popery,  in  which  Luther  acted  so  distinguished  a  part.  Every  child  among  us  is 
familiar  with  his  name,  his  sentimentr,  and  his  triumphant  struggles  against  the 
Man  of  Sin.  Can  it  bo  supposed  tliat  the  history  of  the  Apostolic  age,  the  sen- 
timents and  achicvraentsof  the  immediate  disciples  of  our  Lord,  and  the  usages 
of  the  churches  founded  by  them  were  less  interesting,  and  less  fresh  in  the 
memory  of  Augustine  and  his  contemporaries,  than  the  labors  of  Luther  and  his 
nssociaies  are  to  usl  Augustine  was  undoubtedly  familiar  with  all  the  writings 
of  tho  eminent  men  who  had  preceded  him,  and  with  all  the  records  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age  then  in  existence  ;  and  he  knew — he  must  have  known  whether  infant 
baptism  was  derived- from  the  Apostles  or  not,  and  whether  it  was  the  usage  of 
the  whole  church  or  not.  Hence,  his  declaration  that  infant  baptism  was  an 
Apostolical  tradition  always  observed,  may  be  considered  as  decisive  "evidence 
in  its  fiivor,  for  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  one  situated  as  he  was  could  have 
been  mistaken. 

*  Robert  Hall,  an  Immersionalist,  says  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  in- 
troduced tov;ards  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
and  then  adds,  "we  cannot  suppose  a  shorter  space  was  requisite  to  procure  it, 
that  complete  establishment  anu  ascendancy  which  it  possessed  in  the  time  of 
St,  Austin."     Works,  vol.  i.  p.  481. 


73 

One  of  the  contemporaries  of  Augustine  waa  Pelagius  a  Britton,  who  became 
entangled  in  a  controversy  with  Augustine,  whidh  related  to  the  subjects  of  sin, 
grace  and  free  will,  and  election  ;  with  which  werc'^conriected  tiiose  of  infant 
baptism,  redemption  and  perseverance  in  holiness.  Felagius  believed  that  Ad- 
am's sin  had  no  bad  effect  upon  the  character  and  condition  of  hisjpostority  ; 
that  sin  arose,  merely  from  imitation  ;  that  all  men  are,  from  their  nature,  mor- 
tal ;  and  are  born  undepraved.  Augustine  contended,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
all  men,  in  consequence  of  their  descent  from  Adam,  arc  mortal ,  are  chargeable 
with  hereditary  sin  ;  and  are  obnoxious  to  damnation.  These  doctrines  he  en- 
deavored to  prove  from  infant  baptism.  "  Infants,^' he  says,  "  are  by  all  Chris- 
tians acknowledged  to  stand  in  need  of  baptism,  which  must  be  for  original  sin, 
since  they  have  no  other.  If  they  have  no  sin,  why  are  they  then  baptized,  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  the  church  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins." 

Pelagius  felt  this  argument  deeply — he  was  Willing  to  evade  it  if  possible,  but 
he  did  not  dare  to  question  its  correctness.  His  reply  is  full  of  instruction  on 
the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  He  says,  ''  who  can  be  eo  impious  ag  to  hinder 
jiifants  from  being  baptized,  and  born  again  in  Christ."  And  citing  those  words, 
except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  he  says,  "  who  can  be  eo  impious  as  to  refuse  to  an  infant,  of  whatever  age, 
the  common  redemption  of  mankind."  When  it  was  charged  upon  him  that  his 
sentiments  led  to  the  denial  of  infant  baptism-  he  disavows  the  consequence,  and 
says — "  Men  SLANDER  me  as  if  I  beinied  the  Sacrament  of  baptism  to  in- 
fants. I  NEVEa  HEARD  OF  ANT,  NOT  EVEN  THE  MOST  IMPIOUS  HERETIC,  AVHO 
DENIED  BAPTISM  TO  INFANTS." 

These  are  the  assertions  of  Pelagius,  a  witness  of  high  authority.  For  he 
was  a  Britton  by  birth,  and  had  travelled  through  France,  Africa  proper,  and 
Egypt,»to  Jerusalem.  Had  there  been  any  portion  of  the  Christian  Church  from 
Britain  to  Jerusalem,  on  either  side  of  the  Mediterranean  sea  where  the  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptism  did  not  exist,  it  seems  impossible  that  he  should  not  have 
heard  of  it.  Being  a  man  of  an  inquisitive  mind,  he  must  have  ascertained,  also, 
if  there  had  been  any  sect  of  heretics  who  denied  infant  baptism.  Being  a  man 
of  learning,  he  must  have  been  well  informed  concerning  the  usage  of  the  church 
during  preceding  periods.  Yet,  when  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  was  object- 
ed against  his  own  opinions  and  he  was  puzzled  with  it,  and  had  every  induce- 
ment to  deny  it,  he  nevertheless  maintained  its  correctness.  If  infant  baptism 
had  been  an  innovation  and  not  a  practice  for  which  the  authority  of  the  Apos- 
tles could  be  alleged,  Pelagius  knew  it,  and  his  interest  required  him  to  say  so. 
If  it  had  been  only  a  partial  usage  in  the  Church,  brought  in  by  the  influence  of 
certain  great  names,  and  greatly  promoted  by  the  efforts  of  Augustine  and  his 
associates,  as  the  Immersionalists  affirm,  Pelagius  would  at  once  have  relieved 
himself  from  the  perplexity  v/hich  the  argument  from  infant  baptism  occasioned 
him,  by  declaring  that  it  was  an  innovation,  had  obtained  only  a  partial  usage, 
and  that  its  great  and  chief  advocate  and  promoter  was  Augustine  himself. 

If  we  ascend  to  the  time  of  Cyprian,  who  lived  in  the  preceding  century,  we 
meet  with  a  Council  of  sixty-six  ministers,  with  Cyprian  at  their  head,  convened 
A.  D.  253,  about  153  years  from  the  Apostolic  age,  to  n^ive  their  opinion  on  this 

lo 


•74 

question,  propoaed  by  Fidus,  a  country  minister,  whether  a  child  might  be  hap- 
tized  before  the  eighth  day,  or  not.  "  To  this  inquiry  they  reply  at  length,  deliver- 
ing it  as  their  unanimous  opinion  that  baptism  may  with  propriety,  be  adminis- 
tared  at  any  time  previous  to  the  eighth  day."  In  their  letter  to  Fidus,  they 
say ; 

"As  to  the  case  of  infante, — whereas  you  judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized 
within  two  or  three  days  after  they  are  born,  and  that  the  rule  of  circumcision  ia 
to  be  observed,  that  none  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day 
after  he  is  born  ;  we  were  all  in  the  council  of  a  very^different  opinion.  As  for 
what  you  thought  proper  to  be  done,  no  one  was  of  your  mind  ;  but  we  all  rather 
judged  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  is  to  be  denied  to  no  human  being  that 
is  born.  This,  therefore,  dear  brother,  was  our  opinion  in  the  council ;  that  we 
ought  not  to  hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God,  who  is  mer- 
ciful and  kind  to  us  all.  And  this  rule,  as  it  holds  for  all,  we  think  more  especially 
to  be  observed  in  reference  lo  infants,  even  to  those  neivly  born." 

Here,  then,  is  en  ecclesiastical  body  pronouncing  an  opinion  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism.  Here  is  the  judgment  of  sixty-six  ministers  in  its  favor  formally  given 
— a  decision  far  more  forcible  and  important  than  that  of  a  private  individual,  as 
it  unquestionably  denotes  the  usage  of  the  church,  "  Now,  among  such  a  num- 
ber of  ministers,  doubtless  there  were  some  60  or  70  3'ears  old,  who  could  re- 
member within  less  than  100  years  of  the  Apostles.  If,  therefore,  infant  bap- 
tism had  been  a  practice  introduced  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  some  of  them 
must  have  known  it.  And,  if  so,  is  it  not  singular,  that  none  of  them  should  in- 
timate or  express  any  scruple  about  it." 

As  we  proceed  upward  toward  the  Apostolic  age,  we  meet  with  Origen,  who 
was  born  of  Christian  parents,  A.  D.  185,  within  85  years  of  the  Apostolic  age. 
He  resided  in  Alexandria,  in  Capadocia,  and  in  Palestine.  He  travelled  in  Italy, 
Greece  and  Arabia,  and  must  have  been  in  correspondence  with  the  churches  in 
every  country.  He  was  distinguished  for  his  great  learning,  his  piety  and  love 
of  truth.  While  he  was  settled  at  Caesarea,  he  taught  sacred  and  profane  learn- 
ing to  a  numerous  train  of  disciples,  among  whom  was  Porphyry,  a  bitter  opposer 
of  the  Christians,  and  who  has  declared  respecting  him  that  he  was  "  master  ot 
all  the  learning  of  the  times."*  The  high  estimation  in  which  he  was  held,  is  man- 
ifest from  a  sort  of  maxim,  or  proverb,  which  vv'^as  current  among  the  great  men 
of  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  which  was  this  :  "  that  they  had  rather  have  Or- 
igen's  mistakes,  than  the  correct  opinions  of  other  men."t  The  father  of  Ori- 
gen and  his  grandfather,  were  Christians,  and  allowing  them  each  50  years,  hia 
grandfather  was  born  before  St.  John,  the  last  of  the  Apostles  was  dead,  for  he 
died  about  A.  D.  95,  or  lOO.  Origen  "  derived  his  Christian  doctrine,  and  in- 
struction" of  course,  from  his  ancestors,  as  Eusebius  affirms.}     "  What  is  his  tea- 

*  "  Q,uem  ego  cum  adhuc  essem  valde  puer,  vidi,  arcanam  totius  eruditions 
tenentem." 

j-  •'  Ma1le  ee  cum  Origcne  crrare,  quam  cum  aliis  bono  scntire.'' 


75 

uraony  ]"  It  is  "  that  little  children  are  baptized  agreeably  to  the  usage  of  the 
Church  ;  that  the  Church  received  it  as  a  tradition  from  the  Apostles,  that  bap- 
tism should  be  adminiBtered  to  children.  For  this  cause  (i.  e.  native  pollution) 
it  was  that  the  Church  received  an  order  from  the  Apostles  to  give  laptism  euen 
to  infaTils."  Now,  as  Origen  lived  within  a  century  of  the  Apostolic  age,  was  a 
man  of  eminent  learning,  had  a  line  of  Christian  ancestors  reaching  back  into 
the  Apostolic  age,  and  could  ascertain  even  from  his  line  of  family  ancestors  what 
had  been  the  usage  of  the  church  in  preceding  periods,  his  testimony  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism  is  of  the  most  important  character.  It  certainly  proves  beyond 
all  question  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  derived  from  the  Apostles. 

;^ Ascending  about  40  years  higher,  to  A.  D.  145,  within  45  years  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  we  meet  with  the  famous  Tertullian.  He  was  a  Montanist  in-  senti- 
ment, and  ran  into  so  many  vagaries  of  doctrine  that  he  banished  much  of  the 
truth  from  bis  religious  views,  and  no  small  share  of  pure  intelligence.  He  en- 
tertained the  strange  notion  ''  that  baptism  removed  in  a  kind  of  miraculous  way, 
all  sins  previously  committed  ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  the  sins  committed  sub- 
sequently to  baptism,'could  be  forgiven  only  with  great  difficulty  or  none  at  all. 
And  so  he  imagined,  that  one  baptized  shortly  before  death,  went  out  of  the  world 
as  a  man  without  sin  and  was  saved."  On  this  account  he  advised  the  delay  of 
baptism,  in  the  case  of  unmariied  persons,  youths  and  infants  until  they  would 
be  less  exposed  to  temptation,  and  have  a  less  number  of  sins  to  answer  for ;  and 
in  his  book  on  Baptism,  says  :  "  That  baptism  ought  not  to  be  administered  rash- 
ly, the  administrators  of  it  know.  Give  to  him  that  asketh,  every  one  hath  a 
right,  as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  alms.  Yea,  rather  say,  give  not  that  which  is  ho- 
ly unto  dogs,  cast  not  your  pearls  before  swine,  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  mani 
be  not  a  partaker  of  other  men's  sins.  If  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  on  the 
spot,  let  us  recollect  it  was  done  under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  Lord. 
The  Spirit  commanded  Philip  to  go  that  way  ;  the  Eunuch  was  not  idle  when 
he  found  him,  nor  did  he  immediately  desire  to  be  baptized  ;  but  having  been  at 
the  temple  to  worship  God,  he  was  attending  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There 
was  a  propriety  in  what  he  was  about,  when  God  sent  his  Apostle  to  him,  the 
Spirit  gave  Philip  a  second  order  to  join  himself  to  the  chariot.  The  Eunuch 
was  a  believer  of  Scripture,  the  instruction  given  by  Philip  was  seasonable  ;  the 
one  preached,  and  the  other  perceived  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  believed  on  him  ; 
water  was  at  hand,  and  the  Apostle  having  finished  the  affair  was  caught  away. 
But  Paul,  you  say,  was  baptized  instantly.  True  ;  because  Judas,  in  whose 
house  he  was,  instantly  knew  he  was  a  vessel  of  mercy.  The  condescension  of 
God  may  confer  his  favors  as  he  pleases  :  but  our  wishes  may  mislead  ourselves 
and  others. 


§  "Nam  et  instituta  Christianse  disciplinse  (sicut  historia  superior  declaravit) 
Origeni  a  parentibus  Integra  tradebantur."  i.e.  For  the  entire  lessons  of  the 
Christian  discipline,  (as  our  history  has  already  declared)  were  delivered  to  Or- 
igen by  his  parents. — Eusebius  Eccl.  History,  B.  vi,  Chap,  xiii, 


76 


'•  Itaque  pro  ciijus  quce  personas  con-l  "It  is  thorelbre  mo.^t  expedient  to  de- 
ditione,  ac  dispositione,  etiani  setateJfer  baptism,  and  to  regulate  the  admin- 
cunctatio  baptismi  utilior  est:  prsecip-istration  of  it  according  to  the  condition, 
ue  tamen  circa  parvulos.  Quid  enimlthe  disposition  and  the  age  of  the  per- 
necesse  est  sponsores  etiam  periculo  in-jsoii  lobe  baptized;  and  especially  in 
gcri?  Quia  et  ipsi  per  mortalitatem [the  case  of  little  ones.  What  necessi- 
destiluere  promissiones  suas  possunt,  etjty  is  there  to  expose  sponsors  to  danger? 
proventu  malse  indolis   falli.      Ait  qui-|Death  may  incapacitate  them  for  fulfil- 


dem  dominus,  Nolile  illos  prohihere  ad 
me  venire,  (Math,  xix,  14)  Veniant  er 
go,  dum  adolescunt,  veniant  dum  dis 
Clint,  dum  quo  veniant  docentur  ;  fiant 
ChrietianiquumChriatumnossepotuerint 
Quid  festinat  innocens  setas  ad  remissio 
nem  peccatorum?  Cautius  ageturin  sffc- 
ularibysjUt  cui  substantia  terrena  non  ere 
ditur,  divina  credatur.  Norint  petere 
salutem,  ut  pretenti  dedisse  videaris. 
Non  minori  de  causa,  innpti  quoque 
procrastinandi,  in  quibus  tentatio  prai- 
parata  est,  tarn  virginibus  per  maturi- 
tatem,  quam  viduis  per  vagationem,  do- 
nee aut  nubant,  aut  continentise  corrob- 
orentur.  Si  qui  pondug  intelligant  bap- 
tismi, magis  timebunt  consecutionem, 
quam  dilationem  :  fides  integra  secura 
est  de  salute." — Robinsmi^s  History  of 
Baptism,  p  171.  Ginseler's  Ecol  His 
tory.  Vol.  i,  p  l05. 


ling  their  engagements  ;  or  bad  dispo- 
sitions may  defeat  all  their  endeavors. 
Indeed,  the  Lord  says,  forbid  them  not 
to  come  unto  me  ;  let  them  come,  there- 
fore, v^-hile  they  are  growing  up,  let 
them  come  while  they  learn,  while  they 
are  instructed  for  what  they  come,  and 
let  them  become  Christians  when  they 
are  able  to  know  Christ.  Why  should 
that  innocent  age  hasten  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  1  People  act  more  cau- 
tiously in  secular  affairs,  they  do  not 
commit  the  care  of  divine  things  to  such 
as  are  not  entrusted  with  temporal  things 
Let  them  know  how  to  ask  salvation, 
that  you  may  appear  to  have  given  it  to 
one  that  asketh.  For  no  less  reason 
unmarried  persons  also  should  delay, 
who  are  ezposed  to  temptation  ;  as  vir- 
gins by  reason  of  maturity  ;  as  well  as 
widows  by  being  destitute  of  consorts  ; 
either  till  they  marry,  or  are  confirmed 
in  continence.  They  who  understand 
the  importance  of  baptism  will  rather  be 
afraid  to  receive  it,  than  to  put  it  off; 
a  sound  faith  alone  secures  salvation."- 


From  this  passage  the  Immcrsionalists  gather  "  that  infant  baptism  was  then 
a  novel  practice,  was  just  commencing,  and  approved  by  very  few,"  and  that 
Tertullian  opposes  it  as  such  a  practice.  But  the  truth  is,  he  was  not  an  oppos- 
er  of  infant  baptism  any  more  than  of  the  baptism  of  unmarried  virgins,  widows, 
and  youths.  He  opposes  one  just  as  much  as  he  did  the  other,  and  advised  the 
delay  of  both  for  the  reason  that  he  very  erroneously  and  foolishly  believed  that 
sin  committed  after  baptism,  was  something  vastly  different  from  sin  committed 
before  baptism,  being  almost  unpardonable.  Pie  pleads  for  its  delay  wholly  on 
the  ground  of  advantage  to  the  persona  who  deferred  it.  He  does  not  pretend 
that  infant  baptism  was  a  hovel  practice,  an  innovation,  or  an  unlawful  usage. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  practice  of  the  church  to  baptize  infante, 
and  one  reason  why  he  advises  its  delay,  is  that  the  godfathers  might  not  be 
brought  into  danger  by  the  obligations  they  assumed  in  acting  the  part  of  spon- 
sors. The  only  novel  thing,  we  imagine  in  this  case,  was  not  infant  baptism, 
but  Tertullian's  notion  that  the  baptism  of  infants,  youths,  unmarried  person?, 
&c.  should  be  delayed  because  sins  committed  after  baptism  were  almost  unpar- 
donable. This  was  an  opinion  of  his  own  and  some  others,  "  novel  in  itself,  and 
approved  by  very  j^?f."  * 


'^Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  endeavors  to  evade  the  force  of  this  tea- 


Clemens  Alkxandrius,  a  man  diatirig-uishoil  for  erudition  iii.'general,  auJ 
who  was  contemporary  with  TertnlUQn,  says,  "If  any  one  be  a  fisherman,  let 
liim  think  of  an  apostle  and  the  childreii  taken  out  of  the  water."  Clemens  is 
giving  advice  to  Christians  concerning  their  ornaments,  and  speaks  of  tlie  rings 
then  usually  worn  on  their  fingers,  and  the  seals  engraven  on  them.  He  forbids 
all  idolatrous  and  lacivious  engravings  ;  and  advises  to  such  as  are  innocent  and 
useful ;  and  says  thus.  Let  your  seal  be  a  clove,  or  dLfish,  or  a  ship  under  sail,  or 
a  Tiarp,  or  an  anchor,  &c.  And  if  any  one  be  a  fisherman,  let  him  think  of  an 
Apostle,  and  the  children  taken  out  of  the  water."  That  is,  a  fisherman  should 
have  the  emblem  of  an  Apostle  haplizing  children  engraven  on  his  seal.  This 
would  be  very  suitable  to  a  fisherman,  because  the  Apostles  were  fishermen. 
The  inevitable  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  advice,  is  that  in  the  time  of 
Clemens  the  belief  prevailed  that  the  Apostles  baptized  children. 

Irenaeus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp  and  otlier  Apostolic  fathers,  who  was  born 
about  A.  D.,  97,  says  ;  "For  Christ  came  to  save  all  persons   by  himself;  all  I 

timony  by  affirming  that  Tertullian  did  not  refer  to  little  infants,  in  the  usual 
popular  modern  English  sense.  He  says  that  "  they  v/ere  infants  i?i  law,  of  such 
an  age  as  to  be  able  to  ask  to  be  baptized."  p  165. 

But  it  is  evident  that  Tertullian  had  reference  to  infants,  or  children  who  were 
not  old  enough  either  to  understand  the  meaning  of  Baptism,  or  to  ask  to  be  bap- 
tized. For  he  nses  the  word  "  parvulos''  which  means  a  little  child  or  infant, 
as  can  be  proved  by  examples  without  number.  In  addition  to  this  he  has  so 
expressed  himself  as  to  shew  that  he  uses  the  word  in  this  signification.  For 
he  describes  these  "  parvulos,'"  as  innoceyils  in  their  age,  and  he  advises  that  their 
baptism  should  be  delayed  until  they  had  attained  more  knowledge  and  a  great- 
er age.  "  Let  them  come,"  he  says,  "  while  they  are  growing  up,  let  them  come 
while  they  learn,  while  they  are  taught  for  what  they  come,  let  them  become 
Christians  when  they  arc  able  to  know  Christ.  Why  should  that  innncent  age 
hasten  to  the  remission  of  sins]"  Furthermore,  he  refers  to  our  Saviour's  words, 
Math  xix,  14,  <■  forbid  the?n  not  to  come  uniome,^  thus  shewing  beyond  all  doubt  that 
he  had  in  his  eye  children  of  the  same  age  Vv'ith  those  that  were  presented  to 
Christ  for  his  blessing.  Now  those  that  were  brought  to  Christ  are  designated  by 
the  words  " paidia''' n.ni  "  brephe,^'  which  mean  infants,  thdit  might  be  taken  w 
the  arms  ;  bo  says  Mark,  chap,  x,  16,  «  Jesus  took  (paidia)  in  his  arms,  put  his 
hands  on  them  and  blessed  them."  See  also  chap,  ix,  SB.  Mathev/ (ii,  16.) 
uses  the  w^ord  ^-paidia"  to  denote  children  under  two  years  of  age. 

Mr.  Robinson,  however,  is  contradicted  by  P.'Ir.  Booth,  and  Robert  Hall,  who 
admit  that  Tertullian  refers  to  infants  in  the  usual  English  sense  of  the  word. 
Booth  gathers  from  this  passage  that  "Infant  Baptism  was  then  a  novel  practice, 
was  just  commencing,  and  approved  by  very  few,  because  Tertullian  opposes  it  ; 
had  it  been  otherwise,  he  adds,  there  is  no  reason  to  imagine  that  the  celebrated 
African  Father  would  have  treated  it  as  he  did." 

R.  Hall,  says  :  "Supposing  the  modern  practice  fof  infant  baptism)  to  have 
been  first  introduced  towards  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  which  corresponds  to  the  time  at  which  it  is  distinctly  noticed  by  Ter- 
tullian, the  first  writer  who  explicitly  mentions  it."  &c. 

If  Mr.  Robinson  did  not  convince  Mr.  Booth,  and  R.  Hall,  that  Tertullian  re- 
ferred to  children  who  were  not  little  babes,  surely  it  is  too  much  to  expect  that 
psedobaptists  will  be,  especially  when  three  such  writers  as  Robinson,  Hall  and 
Booth,  disagree.  Furthermore,  we  do  not  see  with  what  propriety  Mr.  Robin- 
son can  say  that  Infant  Baptism  began  with  the  time  of  Tertullian,  if  Tertullian 
did  not  oppose  the  baptism  of  babes,  b-jt  of  older  children.  If  he  referred  to  the 
latter,  when  did  the  baptism  of  babes  begin  1 


73 

»ay  u'lio  by  hlin  are  xogeneratod  luito  God,  Ins-ant^  and  little  ones,  and  chil- 
•iren,  and  youth?,  and  elder  persons."  Now,  what  he  meant  by  "  regenerated 
unto  God,"  ja  explained  by  himaelf  in  a  parallel  place,  to  be  baptism  ;  for  he 
epeaks  of  baptism '•  as  our  regeneration  to  God."  Regeneration,  furthermore 
is  one  of  the  terms  by  ^yhieh  many  of  the  fathers  besides  Irenaeus  denoted  bap- 
lism.  The  fair  inference  from  liis  passage,  then,  is  that  Irenaeus  epeaks  of  in-: 
tant  baptism. 

There  ia  one  person  more  whose  testimony  we  will  notice.  It  is  that  of  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  who  was  born  in  the  midst  of  Christians  at  Neapolis,  in  ^Samaria, 
within  the  Apostolic  age,  and  probably  before  St.  John  was  dead.  In  his  apol- 
gy  for  the  Christiana  which  he  wrote  A.  D.  150,  he  says  "  Many  persons  of  both 
sexes,  some  ei.xty,  some  seventy  years  old,  were  made  disciples  of  Christ, 
f,f  rrotdajy  (ck  paidon)  from  childhood,''  the  same  word  that  Luke  uses  where  he 
Bays  Jesus  took  infants  in  his  arms.  "  Now  there  never  was  any  other  mode  of 
making  disciples  to  Christ  of  infant?,  except  by  baptism."  *  Hence  these  per- 
sons of  60  or  seventy  years  of  age,  may  have  been  baptized  while  some  of  the 
Apostles  were  living ;  for  Peter  and  Paul  lived  to  about  A.  D.  68,  Jude,  Thom&s 
and  Luke  till  about  A.  D.  74,  and  St.  John  till  about  A.  D.  95  or  100, 

We  have  nov.-  traced  infant  baptism  into  the  Apostolic  age.  If  we  return  to  Au- 
gustine with  whose  testimony  we  commenced,  and  trace  the  history  downward, 
we  shall  find  that  infant  baptism  continued  to  be  generally  practiced  until  A.  D. 
l520,  when  the  Anabaptists  took  their  rise  in  Germany.  There  was  indeed  a 
small  body  of  Waldenses  in  France,  who  appeared  A.  D.  1130,  that  denied  infant 
baptism,  but  ilipy  soon  dwindled  away.  Excepting  these,  there  is  no  church 
that  held  at  all  to  water  baptism,  which  denied  the  baptism  of  infants.  This 
Btatement  is  mede  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Wall,  who  has  written  a  large  work 
en  the  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  who  has  left  nothing  on  that  subject  extan!; 
in  the  early  Christian  writers  unread. 

He  says,  "For  the  first  four  hundred  years,  there  appears  only  one  man,  Ter- 
tullian,  who  advised  the  delay  of  infant  baptism  in  some  cases  ;  and  one  Grego- 
ry, who  did  perhaps  practice  such  delay  in  case  of  his  own  children  ;  but  no  so- 
ciety of  men  so  thinking,  or  so  practicing,  or  any  one  man  saying  that  it  was  uru 
lawful  to  baptize  infants.  So  in  the  next  seven  hundred  years,  there  is  not  so 
much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  who  either  spoke  for  or  practiced  any  delay,  but  all 
the  contrary.  And  when  about  the  year  1130,  one  sect  of  the  Waldenses,  or 
AlbigenscF,  declared  against  the  baptizing  of  infants,  because  they  thought  them 
incapable  of  salvation,  the  main  body  of  that  people  rejected  their  opinions  ;  and 
they  who  held  that  opmion,  quickly  dwindled  away  and  disappeared  ;  there  be- 
inc  no  more  persons  heard  of,  holding  that  tenent,  until  the  rising  of  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptists,  A.  D.  152£-." 

"  The  confessions  of  Faith  and  other  writings  of  the  Waldenses  drawn  np  be 
tween  the  twelfth  and  sixteenlii  coularien,  and  ,  in  which  they  represent  their 
usages  has  handed  down  from  father  to  son,  tor  several  hundred  years  before  the 

*  Dwight's  Theology,  Vol.  iv.  p  336, 


79 

Refornmtion.'' do  eonlain  the  (loctrinc  of  infant  baptism.  They  gay,  "  And  for 
this  cause  it  is  we  present  our  children  in  baptism,"  &c.  The  things  which  are 
not  necessary  in  baptiam  arc,  the  exorcisms,  the  breatliing?,  the  sign  of  the  cross 
upon  the  head  or  forehead  of  the  infant,"  &c. 

Robert  Hall  was  constrained  by  this  evidence  to  admit  that  the  Waldensesbap 
ed  infants.  "  Many  of  the  VValdenses,"  lie  says  "  are  judged  with  great  appear- 
ance of  evidence  to  have  held  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  baptism  of  infante  i 
coincident  with  those  by  which  we,  ae  a  denomination,  are  distinguished.  By 
their  persecutors  of  the  Romish  community,  they  are  usually  stigmatized  and  re 
preached  for  holding  the  Anabaptist  heresy  ;  wliile  it  appears,  on  the  contrsr;- 
that  there  were  not  wanting  so??ie  among  them  rcho  practiced  the  baptism  of  iu' 
fonts."  He  also  says,  "After  the  comraoncement  of  the  fourth  century  down  to 
the  era  of  the  Reformation,  the  baptism  of  infants  was  firmly  established,  and 
prevailed  to  such  an  extent  ih&tfetv  traces  of  the  ordindnce  in  its  prirnidve  state  ar» 
to  he  dwcmied."— Works,  Vol.  i,  pp  482,  483. 

From  these  facts  and  statements  it  appears  tlmt  infant  baptism  was  a  universal 
practice  in  the  Church  of  God  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  after  the  Apostol- 
ic age,  and  consequently  there  have  been  whole  centuries  when  none  but  P  aedo- 
baptist  churches  have  existed.  If  Pajdobaptist  churches,  therefore,  are  not  trug 
churches  of  Christ,  it  will  follow  that  there  have  been  whole  centuries  since  the 
Christian  era  commenced  in  which  God  has  not  had  a  visible  church  in  the 
World. 

Furthermore,  if  the  baptism  of  infanta  had  been  an  unlawful  practice,  an  inno- 
vation which  came  into  the  church  after  the  Apostolic  age,  it  must  have  occa- 
sioned disputes.  It  must  have  come  in  the  course  of  one  hundred  years  between 
A.  D.  lOO,  and  A.  D.  200.  for  after  that  there  is  the  fullest  evidence  that  it  uni- 
versally prevailed.  The  Christian  religion  was  widely  propagated  by  the  Apos- 
tles, and  churches  were  planted  in  every  kingdom  of  the  civilized  world.  These 
churches  were  numerous  and  extended  over  a  territory  several  thousar^d  miles  in 
extent  and  many  hundred  in  breadth.  "But  if  they  had  been  established  upon 
the  plan  of  adult  baptism  only,  and  no  children  had  been  baptized  ;  ho^  could 
infant  baptism  become  so  universally  prevalent  through  all  the  Christian  world, 
among  different  nations  and  in  churches  many  thousand  miles  distant  from  each 
other,  in  the  course  of  lOO  years  from  the  Apostles  "?  How  could  such  a  speedy 
and  great  alteration  take  place  in  a  matter  of  such  public  notoriety  and  great  im- 
portance, and  yet  no  noise  be  made  about  it,  and  no  opposition  be  created  against 
it"  1  We  have  a  particular  history  of  the  religious  doctrines,  rites,  disputes  and 
divisions  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  composed  by 
Eusehius, Socrates,  Theoderet,  and  Sozoman,  men  who  lived  within  a  few  hundred 
years  of  the  Apostles,  we  have  also  the  writings  of  many  ecclesiastical  persons 
of  high  standing  in  the  primitive  church  still  extant,  who  tell  us  that  when  any 
new  religious  sentiments  were  introduced  they  occasioned  controversy, and  were 
brought  in  with  great  difficulty.  Tliey  have  also  preserved  in  moat  instances 
the  na.niee  of  the  very  persons  who  attempted  innovations,  and  of  those  whoop- 
posed  them.  But  you  look  in  vain  in  the  histories  of  Eusebiio,  tSocEAXES,  Thc,- 
ODERET,  and  Sozoman,  and  in  the  writingfj  of  the  fathers  of th(?  primitive  church, 


80 

for  the  name  of  the  person  who  first  taught  that  infants  were  eutiiJcd  to  baptism 
and  who  introduced  llje  unheard  of  practice  of  edministcrinDr  to  them  the  rite  of 
baptism.*  You  search  them  in  vain  for  an  account  of  any  controversy  or  divis- 
ion in  respect  to  this  subject.  Whenever  they  speak  of  the  orighi  of  infant  bap- 
tism, they  uniformly  refer  it  to  the  Apostles.f  But  if  the  churches  had  been  es- 
tablished on  the  principle  of  adult  baptism  only,  if  the  same  high  regard  for  the 
maintainance  of  that  principle  had  existed  among  the  primitive  Christians  that 
actuates  modern  Immersionalists,  it  is  very  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  a  mat- 
ter of  such  importance  as  infant  baptism  could  have  been  introduced  into  the 
Christian  church,  directly  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  the  usages 
of  all  the  churches  which  they  had  established,  without  having  produced  opposi- 
tion and  occasional  violent  controversies.      To  suppose  that  it  came  in  silently 

*  Robinson  says  infant  baptism  commenced  among  the  Gnostics,  in  the  East- 
ern or  Greek  Church.  But  he  admits  that  "  it  is  impossible  to  say  any  thing 
certain  on  the  baptism  of  children  among  the  Gnostics,  when  and  where  it  origi- 
nated, whether  it  were  only  proposed  or  really  practised,  how  far  it  extended, 
and  by  what  means,  or  at  what  moment  it  found  its  way  into  the  Catholic  Church." 
History  of  Baptism,  p.  iI29.  This  is  the  concession  of  a  writer  who  com- 
posed a  learned  and  elaborate  work  of  more  than  500  pages  to  disprove  infant 
baptism.  But  he  professes  to  tell  when  it  made  its  first  public  appearance  in 
the  Greek  Church.  This  was  in  the  year  three  hundred  eighty  one,  when 
"  Gregory,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  delivered  the  fortieth  oration,  and  hav- 
ing severely  censured .3  delay  of  baptism  on  account  of  the  danger  of  it,  gave 
his  opinion  on  the  propriety  of  baptizing  children,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of 
baptizing  even  babes,  in  case  of  danger  of  death."  How  could  Mr.  Robinson  af- 
firm that  this  was  its  first  public  appearance  in  the  Greek  Church,  when  Or- 
igen,  a  Greek  father,  who  preceded  Gregory  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty 
years,  had  advocated  infant  baptism,  and  derived  its  origin  from  the  Apostles  1 — ■ 
But  suppose  we  admit  it,  then  on  his  own  principles,  Immersionalisls  and  Poedo- 
baptists  must  have  been  associated  and  must  have  communed  with  each  other 
while  it  was  coming  in  secretly,  and  after  it  was  publicly  practised.  During  the 
long  period,  while  infant  baptism  was  finding  its  way  into  the  Churchj  which 
must  have  included  many  years,  •'  there  must  have  been  some,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Robert  Hall,  who  still  adhered  to  the  primitive  practice,  and  others 
who  favored  and  adopted  the  more  recent  innovations  ;  there  must  have  been 
Baptists  and  Peedobaptists  contemporary  with  each  other,  and  incorporated  into 
one  grand  community.  There  is  not  the  faintest  trace  or  vestige  to  be  found  in 
Ecclesiastical  History,  that  they  separated  from  each  other  to  form  distinct  and 
exclusive  societies.  We  challenge  our  opponents  to  produce  the  shadow  of  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  the  existence  during  that  long  track  of  time,  of  a  single  society  of 
tchich  adult  baptism  toas  the  distinguishing  cfiaracteristic."  Hence,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Immersionalists  that  infant  baptism  came  into  the  Church  gradually  and 
secretly,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  primitive  Church,  Immersionalists 
themselves  introduced  and  tolerated  it,  and  did  not  on  account  of  it  separate  and 
depart  from  what  must  have  been  the  primitive  practice,  when  Immersionalists 
themselves  introduced  both  infant  baptism  and  ini'aiit  sprinkling  into  the  Church. 
For  if  the  Apostles  themselves  founded  the  Church  on  immersion  and  adult  bap- 
tism, then  Immersionalists  have  introduced  sprinkling  and  pcedobaptism.  This 
heresy  is  their  own  contrivance. 

f  *'  What  they  (the  Anabaptists)  circulate  among  the  uninformed  mu]titude,that 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  a  long  series  of  years  passed,  in  which  infant 
baptism  was  unknown,  is  contrary  to  truth  :  for  there  is  no  ancient  writer  who 
does  not  refer  its  origin,  as  a  matter  of  certainty,  to  the  age  of  the  Apostles." — 
Calvin's  Institutes,  vol.  iii,  p.  ib^. 


81 

and  quielly,  and  none  knew  wlieri  and  by  whom  it  waa  iiilroducud,  is  veiy  ab- 
surd ?  The  Church  had  then,  for  she  uhvaya  had>  a  few  watchful  guardians  of 
her  purity,  men  who  had  no  rest  in  their  flesh,  who  were  filled  with  heaviness 
Xvhen  she  was  in  danger  of  corruption,  and  who  would  not  forbear  to  let  their- 
■convictions  be  known  when  innovations  upon  her  usages  were  attempted. 

These  men  must  Jiave  raised  their  voice  against  infant  baptism,  nnd  resisted  it 
with  all  the  means  at  their  disposal.  But  wliere  were  they  when  infant  baptism 
came  into  the  Church  ?  Did  the  men  of  niiglit  and  holy  zeal,  who  were  found  at 
every  other  season  of  the  Church's  peril  and  necessity,  and  who 'came  nobly  to  her 
aid  and  rescue,  slumber  on  this  occasion  ]  The  supposition  is  very  unreasonable. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  from  these  considerations,  that  infant  baptism  wa.- 
an  Apostolic  practice,  introduced  by  their  authority,  and  continued  by  their  posi- 
tive injunctions.  If  so,  it  cannot  be  overthrown.  It  must  stand  firmly  and  im- 
raoveably,  sin«e  it  ia  sustained  by  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  and  is  built 
tipon  the  foundation  of  the  .*.p03tles  and  Prcphet?,-  Jceus  Christ  him-selfbei-fig- 
ihz  chief  corner  stone. 


11 


SERMON  VI, 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

Matthew  xxi,  25. — "The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it;  from  Heaven  or 
of  men?" 

This  question  was  proposed  to  the  Pharasees  by  our  blessed  Lord,  when  they 
asked  him  by  what  authority  he  had  been  commissioned  to  teach,  and  cast  buy- 
ers and  sellers  out  of  the  Temple.  He  does  not  say  directly  and  positively  that 
he  was  divinely  commissioned  to  do  these  things,  but  inferentially.  If  they  ans- 
wered his  question  correctly,  and  admitted  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  from 
Heaven,  (which  the  people  generally  believed;)  the  inference  was  unavoidable 
that  he  held  his  office  by  a  divine  commission,  because  John  had  solemnly  con- 
secrated him  to  it  by  baptizing  him.  If  John's  baptism  was  from  Heaven,  then 
had  he  been  set  apart  to  his  office  by  a  divinely  constituted  ordinance,  and 
hence  ho  was  the  Son  of  God  clothed  with  the  divine  authority.  The  Phara- 
sees perceived  the  conclusion  which  would  inevitably  follow  the  admission  that 
John's  baptism  was  from  Heaven,  and  as  they  did  not  desire  to  acknowledge  him 
the  Son  of  God,  they  pretended  that  they  did  not  know  from  what  source  John 
had  derived  his  baptism. 

In  this  instance,  our  blessed  Lord  silenced  his  opposers  by  a  deductive  or  in- 
ferential argument.  He  did  the  same  on  other  occasions,  (Luke  xx,  37,  i\8,  com- 
pared with  Exodus  iii,  6.)  He  has,  therefore,  not  only  sanctioned  this  kind  of 
reasoning,  but  he  has  evinced  its  power  and  conclusiveness  to  confound  and  si- 
lence the  adversaries  of  the  truth.  Hence,  an  inferential  argument  is  valid  ; 
and  it  is  lawful  and  sufficient  to  employ  it  to  prove  or  defend  any  doctrine,  or- 
dinance or  practice  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

But  the  Immersionalists  deny  the  soundness  of  all  arguments  of  this  character 
in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  _  They  say  to  us,  we  want  no  inferences,  give  us  a 
positive  precept,  a  thus  saith  the  Lord,  or  a  positive  example  of  infant  baptism 
in  the  New  Testament.  But  why  is  this  demanded  1  If  Christ  proved  that  he 
was  a  teacher  sent  from  God  by  an  inferential  argument,  why  may  we  not  prove 
in  the  same  way  that  infant  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  God?  If  the  proof  is 
valid  in  one  case,  why  may  it  not  be  in  the  other  ?  If  it  is  received  by  the  Immer- 
sionalists in  one  case,  why  should  it  not  be  in  the  other  ? 

"  If  any  thing,"  to  use  the  words  of  another,  "  can  be  made  out  of  the  word 
of  God,  as  having  divine  authority  to  support  it,   it  is  surely  our  duty  to  obey, 


S4 

ivJui'eier  may  hai;e  been  the  ynode  if  arriving  at  the  conclusion.  Only  rnaks  Uitf 
supposition  that  we  ccn  shev.'  eucli  authority  for  any  practice  ;  we  certainly  can 
never  consider  ourBclvea  as  at  liberty  to  decline  compliance,  because  the  point 
haa  not  been  made  out  exactly  in  the  way  which  we  had  prdvioualy  determined 
to  be  the  only  legitimate  and  right  way.  The  man  wlio  questions  it,  (with  what- 
ever assurance  he  may  express  himself,)  betrays  a  secret  want  of  confidence  in 
his  views.  He  virtually  adijiits  that  the  practice  has  the  support  of  divine  au- 
thority ;  and  yet  declines  conijUiance,  because  the  intimation  of  God's  will  has 
not  been  conveyed  in  a  manner  according  to  his  taste,  and  hi.s  preconceptions  of 
propriety.  He  prefers  his  own  judgment  to  that  of  God,  and  presumptuously 
refuses  the  substance  of  authority  on  account  of  the  mode  in  which  its  require- 
ments has  been  expressed." 

We  fully  believe  that  these  words  sat  forth  the  true  po:?ition  of  the  Immersioi;- 
agists,  and  we  trust  thut  shall  bo  able  we  to  make  it  obvious  to  our  readers  in  Iha 
reply  which  we  shall  offer  in  this  discourse,  to  their  arguments  against  infant 
baptiy-n. 

One  of  theise  is,  "  there  is  ao  positive  command  to  baptize  infant.-*,  therefore, 
infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized.'' 

Wo  answer  this  ^Yith  another  proposition  which  we  v.-ill  prove,  there  is  no 
positive  command  prohibiting  infant  baptism,  therefore  infants  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized. 

An  express  divine  injunction  prohibiting  infant  baptism  is  necesiiary  to  author- 
ize us  to  dispense  with  their  baptism,  because  parents  and  children  are  connect- 
ed in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  on  the  ground  of  this  connection  children  are 
entitled  to  the  seal  of  that  covenant.  When  God  called  Abraham  to  separate 
himself  from  a  nation  of  idolaters,  and  go  into  a  laud  where  God  would  plant  his 
posterity,  and  constitute  him  the  head  of  a  holy  people  to  be  selected  out  of  his 
own  descendants  and  all  nations,  and  make  him  the  founder  of  that  religious  pol- 
ity which  is  denominated  the  Church,  he  is  represented  as  saying  to  him,  (Gen. 
xvii,  1,  7.)  "  I  am  the  Almighty  God;  walk  before  me  end  be  thou  perfect. 
And  I  will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  ex- 
ceedingly :  and  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto 
tnce,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  Here  God  revealed  the  covenant  of  grace  un- 
to Abraham,  and  entered  into  an  arrangement  or  co.mpact  with  him  and  his  chil- 
dren, by  which  the  blessings  of  that  covenant  were  secured  to  him  and  his  spir- 
itual seed  in  all  their  generations.  For  the  promise,  "J  will  be  a  God  to  thee 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,"  contained  tlie  fulness  of  both  dispensations  of  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments.  It  was  a  general  promise  containing  many  particu- 
iarp,  the  length  and  breadth  of  which  can  be  understood  only  by  comparing  it 
with  the  history  of  God's  providentiHl  dealings  with  the  successive  generations 
of  Abraham's  seed.  It  secured  besides  temporal,  all  spiritual  blessings,  viz  ;  di- 
vine instruction,  ilhnnination,  adoption,  regeneration,  sanctification  and  salva- 
tion, together  with  the  means  that  God  employs  to  convert,  sanctify,  establish, 
comfort,  and  save  his  saint". 


85 

The  luiinersionaJisi?,  iiowevor,  aasert  that  it  was  a  temporal  covenant  merely, 
founded  on  temporal  promises  and  securing  only  temporal  blessings,  h-it  the  er- 
ror of  their  assertion,  and  the  correctness  of  our  position,  may  be  made  out  from 
the  following  considerations. 

^i  1.  In  the  Old  Testament,  God  often  assures  the  Jews  that  the  ex- 
pressions of  his  will  in  whatever  way  communicated,  whether  in  laws,  statutes, 
ordinances,  covenants,  promises,  threatenings,  or  judgments,  are  made  to  them 
to  fulfil  his  engagement  to  Abraham  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  hisseed  after  him. 

Moses  speaking  by  divine  inspiration,  Deut.  xxix,  10,  18,  says  to  Israel,  "  Ye 
Btand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your  God  ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes, 
your  elders  and  your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones  and  your 
wives,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp,  that  thou  suovddst  enter  into  cove- 
nant with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his  oath,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh 
with  thee  this  day  ;  that  he  may  establish  thee  to-day  for  a  people  unto  himself, 
and  that  he  may  be  unto  thee  a  God,  as  he  hath  said  unto  thee,  and  as  he  hath 
sworn  unto  thy  Fathers,  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac  and  to  Jacob."  Here  God  enters 
fnto  covenant  with  the  Israelites,  and  in  so  doing,  secures  to  them  all  the  bles- 
Eings  promised  to  Abraham,  in  order  that  he  may  fulfil  his  engagement  to  Abra- 
ham, to  be  the  God  of  his  .seed. 

Moses  says  again,  in  Deut.  xxvi,  16,  18,  19,  "  This  day  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  commanded  thee  to  do  these  statutes  and  judgment?,  and  the  Lord  hath 
avouched  thee  to  be  his  peculiar  people,  as  he  hath  promised  thee,  and  that  thou 
raayest  be  a  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  as  he  hath  spoken.''  The  prom- 
ise here  referred  to,  undoubtedly  is  his  promise  to  A.brabam,  that  he  v.'oald  be 
the  God  of  his  seed, 

In  Lev.  xxvi,  42,  God  declares  that  he  will  spare  the  penitent  among  his  peo- 
ple when  he  sends  judgements  upon  Israel  on  account  of  disobedience,  because 
"  I  remember  my  covenant  with  Abraham."  In  Ps.  cv.,  the  Psalmist  declares 
that  God  nourished  his  people  in  the  wilderness,  delivered  them  from  their  ene- 
mies, and  wrought  miracles  in  their  favor,  because  '"  he  remembered  his  holy 
promise  and  Abraham  his  servant ;"  and  in  Psalm  cvi,  he  afSrms  that  God  did 
not  entirely  cut  them  off,  but  humbled  them  with  his  judgment,  "  because  he  re- 
membered for  them  his  covenant,  and  repented  according  to  the  multitude  of 
hie  mercies." 

2.  God  revealed  the  moral  and  ceremonial  law,  gave  the  Jews  his  oracles,  and 
directed  them  to  observe  his  worship  in  consequence  of  his  engagement  to  Abra- 
ham, to  be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed  after  him.  So  says  tiie  Apostle  Paul  (Rom. 
ix,  4,)  "  To  whom  (that  is,  the  seed  of  Abraham)  pertaineth  the  adoption,  and  the 
glory  and  the  covenant.*,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and 
the  promises."  The  reason  why  these  blessings  pertained  to  them  and  not  to 
other?,  was  God's  covGnafit  made  with  Abraham,  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  his 
spiritual  seed.  In  reply  to  the  quoation,  (Rom.  iii,  1,  2,)  "  What  advantage  then 
hath  the  Jews,  or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision,"  i.  e.  observing  the  seal 
of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  the  Apostle  says,  "Much  every  way  ;  chief- 


id 

]y,  because  lliat  unto  lliPin  were  coiuuiilteJ  tlie  oracies  of  God.''  By  the  oracles 
of  God  is  not  only  meant  the  Scriptures,  but  tiie  laws  and  institutions  which  ac- 
company them.  The  advantage  of  the  Jew  then  over  the  Gentile,  consisted  in 
his  having-  not  only  the  oracles  of  God,  but  the  means  of  grace  and  the  peculiar 
privilegee  of  religion,  and  these  blesaings  were  conferred  on  him  in  consequence 
of  his  connection  wich  Abraham  and  observing  circumcision,  the  seal  of  the  cov- 
enant made  with  Abraham. 

3.  The  promise.  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  respected 
Abraham  as  the  progenitor  of  the  Messiah  as  a  believer,  as  having  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Gospel,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  saving  and  sanctifying  power,  as 
justified  by  faith,  and  as  the  head  and  Father  of  all  believers,  and  consequently 
contained  the  fulness  of  the  Gospel. 

In  (Gal.  iii,  l6,)  it  is  said,  "  Nov/  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises 
made.  He  saith  not,  and  to  sccda  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed 
which  is  Christ."  This  text  is  explained  by  another  of  like  import  in  (Acts  iii, 
25,)  'Ye  arc  the  children  of  the  prophet?,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with 
your  fathers,  saying,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  bles- 
sed ;"  that  is,  in  Christ :  for  so  it  is  said  in  verse  26.  "  Unto  you  first,  God  hav- 
ing raised  up  his  son  Jesus.sent  him  to  bless  you."  This  son  or  child  therefore,is  the 
seed.  Our  blessed  Lord  said  to  the  Jews,  (John  viii,  56,)  "  Your  father  Abra- 
ham rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  (i.  e.  the  coming  of  Christ,)  and  he  saw  it  and  was 
glad,"  that  i?,  he  sav,-  it  afar  off  by  faith,  for  there  is  no  other  way  in  which  he 
could  have  scon  it. 

The  Apostle  Paul  declares  (Gal.  iii,  8,)  "  that  the  Scripture  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  Gospel  to  Abra- 
ham, saying,  in  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed."  The  promise  then  "in  thee  shall 
all  nations  be  blessed,"  contained  in  it  the  substance  of  the  Gospel;  it  included  all 
those  spiritual  blessings  which  are  in  Jesus  Christ.  "  For  alUthe  nations  of  the 
earth  are  no  otherwise  blessed  in  Abraham,  than  as  Christ  who  is  called  the  de- 
sire of  all  nation.'',  and  he  in  whom  the  GentUes  trust,  and  a  light  to  lighten  the 
Gentiles,  descended  from  Abraham." 

in  the  same  chapter  (v;?.  13,  14,)  the  Apostle  says,  "■  that  Christ  hath  redeem- 
ed us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  re- 
ceive tlie  promise  of  the  spirit  through  faith."  Tlie  promise  of  the  Spirit  being 
connected  with  the  reception  of  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  shews  that  that  bles- 
sincr  included  the  promise  of  the  spirit.  Hence,  Abraham  possessed  the  spirit  in 
his  saving  and  sanctifying  power. 

In  Rom.  iv,  1,  3,  the  Apostle  says  that  Abraham  did  not  obtain  justification  by 
virtue  of  his  own  works,  but  by  faith.  "  For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  works 
ho  hatli  whereof  to  glory  but  not  before  God.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture? 
Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  tor  righteousness."  In  the 
16lh  and  1 7f.h  verses,  he  continues,  "Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be 
by  grace  ;  to  t!ie  end  that  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed  ;  not  to  that 


only  wiiich  is  of  llic  law,  but  to  tliat  also  which  is  of  liie  faith  of  Abraham,  who 
is  ihe  father  of  us  all,  (as  it  is  written  I  have  made  thee  the  father  of  many  na- 
tiong,)  before  him  whom  he  believed,  even  God,  who  quickeneth  the  dead,  and 
calleth  those  things  which  be  not  as  though  they  were." 

Again,  the  same'Apostle  says  (Gal.  iii,  2^,29)  all  Christiana  arc  Abraham's 
seed.  "Ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus;  and  if  ye  be  Christ'?,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,  for  to  Abraham  [vs.  16]  and  his 
seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  sailh  not,  "  and  to  seeds,"  as  of  many  ;  but 
as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed  which  is  Christ."  The  plain  import  of  these  passages 
is,  that  the  promise  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee,''  contained 
the  sum  and  substance  of  all  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  Gospel. 

Now  this  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham  and  hia  descendente,  and  waa 
sealed  to  him  by  a  religious  rite.  It  was  made  with  his  spiritual  seed,  including 
all  true  Christians,  "for  they  are  the  children  of  Abraham  fay  faith  and  heirs  ac- 
cording to  the  promise."  It  is  a  permanent  covenant  not  designed  to  be  revok- 
ed. God  declares  that  it  shall  be  au  everlasting  covenant,  the  promise  contained 
in  it,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed,"  being  designed  to  be  perpetual 
and  unchangeable.  It  is  consequently  in  force  now,  as  it  includes  Christians 
(Abraham's  seed)  in  their  generations.  The  seal  of  this  covenant  which  origin- 
ally was  circumcision,  was  applied  to  those  to  whom  it  was  given,  and  they  were 
required  to  keep  it  in  their  generations.  Gen.  xvii,  9,  11.  This  seal  in  its  prin- 
ciple and  substance  remains  in  full  virtue  under  a  changed  form  or  another  re- 
ligious rite.  Two  things  belonged  to  the  original  seal,  the  sign  and  the  thing 
signified.  The  sign  was;^the  religious  rite  itself ;  the  thing  signified  was  the 
blessing  of  which  the  sign  was  an  assurance  or  pledge.  "  The  seal  then  though 
connected  with  the  visible  sign,  was  not  the  sign  itself,  but  the  thing  signified. 
This  was  renovation  of  heart  and  purity  of  life.  Abraham  and  his  posterity  be- 
came  engaged  by  the  covenant  which  God  gave  them  to  walk  before  him  and 
be  perfect,  i.  e.  they  laid  themselves  under  obligation  ^to  live  according  to  the 
law  of  the  covenant,  to  cultivate  purity  of  heart  and  conduct ;  to  mortify  the  flesh 
with  its  afiections  and  lusts  :  to  keep  at  a  distance  from  a  world  lying  in  wick- 
edness, and  to  behave  in  every  place,  and  on  every  occasion,  like  persons  dedi- 
cated to  the  service  of  Jehovah.  Their  being  circumcised,  signified  this,  for  cir- . 
cumcision  pointed  to  the  renewal^'of  the  heart,  and  it  bound  those  who  subjected 
themselves  to  it  to  lead  holy  lives.''  This  statement  and  the  error  ofthe  Immer- 
sionalists,  who  affirm  that  circumcision  was  only  a  badge  of  national  distinction 
and  had  no  spiritual  meaning,  is  fully  proved  by  the  following  passages.  Deut. 
X,  16.  "  Circumcise,  therefore,  the  foreskin  of  your  heart-"  Deut.  xxx,  6.  "  And 
the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart  and  all  thy  soul."  Jer.  iv,  4.  Circum- 
cise yourselves  to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart.  Rom. 
ii,  29.  "  Circumcision  is  that  ofthe  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter." 
Rom.  iv,  11.  ''  Circumcision  is  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  Col.  ii, 
11.  <'  Ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  put- 
ting off  the  body  ofthe  sins  of  the  flesh."  Gal.  V,  3,  "Every' man  that  is  cir- 
cumcised is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whnl?  law."      Rom.  ii,   i'5,  "Circumcision  verily 


88 

profiteth  if  thou  keep  the  law."     Such  were  tlie  l)iii;gf;  signified  by  circuinci.sici, 
the  religious  rite  which  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant. 

But  these  things  are  retained  in  the  ordinance  of  buplism.  Our  blessed  Lord 
when  he  annulled  circumcision,  and  commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize  those 
who  were  admitted  into  the  Church,  merely  changed  the  form  of  the  seal,  but 
retained  its  principle  and  substance  in  baptism.  Baptism  signifies  the  same 
things  that  were  represented  by  circumcision.  It  signifies  regeneration  or  the 
purification  of  the  soul  from  sin.  Tit.  iii,  5.  "  He  saved  U!3  by  the  washing  of 
regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  forgiveness  of  sins.  Acta 
xxii,  16.  •'  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord."  Admission  into  the  family  of  God.  Gal.  iii,  27.  "  A.s  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  A  holy  life.  Rom, 
vi,  4.  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like  bb 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
ehould  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Baptism  having  the  same  import  with  circum- 
cision, it  follows  that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  remains  in  full  virtue,  the  form  of 
it  only  being  changed,  baptism  being  substituted  as  it.s  sign  in  place  of  circum- 
cision.* 

Hence,  we  conclude  that  the  children  of  belicveia  (wiio  arc  Abraliaui's  beed) 
are  entitled  to  baptism,  and  we  dare  not  withhold  this  ordinance  fromihem  with- 
out a  positive  divine  command  requiring  us  to  v.-ithhold  it.  For,  as  tiie  children 
of  Abraham,  they  hold  in  their  hands  an  unrevoked  divine  charter  of  perpetual 
force,  in  which  God  has  engaged  to  be  a  God  to  them  and  their  seed  after  themi 
that  charter  is  given  and  sealed  to  them  and  their  children — no  change  ever  hav- 
ing taken  place  in  it,  except  in  the  form  of  the  seal ;  the  seal  itself  as  to  its  prin- 
ciple and  substance  being  continued  and  expressed  by  a  new  religious  ritp.  Ail 
true  Christians,  therefore,  have  a  warrant  from  God,  founded  on  his  own  charter  to 
consecrate  their  children  to  him  by  baptism.  This  is  the  reason  why  no  com- 
mand has  been  given  in  the  New  Testament  to  baptize  infante.  None  was  ne- 
cessary ;  the  warrant  for  it  is  contained  in  the  covenant  between  God  and  be- 

=^  The  I mmersionalists  object  to  this  reasoning,  and  say  if  baptism  comes  in 
the  place  of  circumcision,  tlien  infants  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table 
In  reply  we  offer  the  following  remarks.  1.  No  person  is  entitled  to  the  Lord's 
supper  who  is  not  a  true  Christian.  No  other  can  discern  the  Lord's  body,  and 
partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  aright.  Baptism  in  any  form  ia  not  a  converting 
ordinance,  it  makes  no  man  a  Christian.  Hence,  baptism  is  not  a  qualification 
for  the  Lord's  supper.  2.  Baptism  does  not  make  its  subject  a  plenary  membei- 
of  the  church.  Nothing  short  of  personal  holiness,  or  a  vita!  union  to  Chriat, 
is  allowed  by  the  Scriptures,  as  a  qualification  for  admission  to  full  membership 
in  the  church.     Hence,  baptism  does  not  entitle  any  one  to  the  Lord's  supper. 

The  use  of  baptism  is  this,  to  entitle  the  subject.^  of  it  to  the  blessings  prom- 
ised in  the  covenant  which  God  has  made  with  believers.  Baptism  is  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  and  it  places  those  who  receive  it  in  a  eiuiatioii  to  be  benefitted  by 
the  great  and  precious  promise  of  God,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  necii 
after  thee."  Parents  who  give  their  children  to  God  in  baptism  can  take  hold 
of  this  glorious  promise,  their  children  are  children  of  promise  as  Isaac  was  ; 
and  if  they  are  faithful  in  training  up  their  children  for  God,  their  children  i.n 
early  life  will  be  coming  forward  to  the  Christian  profession,  and  to  the  partici- 
f'htion  of  promi.sed  blesssings. 


89  » 

iievcfP)  which  includes  their  infant  children. 

Having  now  proved  that  there  is  a  Scriptural  warrant  for  baptizini''  infants 
without  any  express  command  In  the  New  Testament,  we  have  given  a  solid  an- 
swer to  the  argument  of  the  Immersionaliste,  and  might  justly  refuse  to  give  it 
further  notice.  But  as  it  is  much  relied  on,  wc  feel  inclined  to  examine  it  a  lit- 
tie  in  detail. 

The  principle  in  it  i'-,  that  wc  are  not  bound  to  believe  infant  baptism  and 
practice  it  because  it  is  a  matter  of  inference.  Now  if  this  is  a  sound  principle, 
it  may  be  applied  to  other  things,  and  then  we  shall  not  be  bound  to  observe  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  or  to  admit  females  to  the  communion,  or  to  pray  in  our  fam- 
iliee,  or  to  keep  the  ten  commandment?,  or  to  teach  olir  children  the  Lord's 
prayer,  or  to  baptize  by  immersion.  There  is  no  command  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath,  no  command  requiring 
females  to  commune,  no  positive  injunction  to  parents  to  pray  in  their  families, 
or  to  keep  the  ten  commandments,  or  to  teach  their  children  to  commit  the  Lord's 
prayer.  There  is  no  command  in  the  NewTestament  requiring  parents  to  teach 
their  children  to  read  the  Scriptures,  attend  on  the  worship  of  God  on  the  Sab- 
bath, and  to  forbid  them  stealing,  rioting,  fighting,  profaning  the  name  of  God 
and  committing  other  sins.  In  short,  there  is  no  express  command  to  immerse, 
in  applying  the  rite  of  baptism,  in  the  iSTew  Testament.  There  ia  a  command 
to  baptize,  but  we  may  baptize  by  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  as  well  as  by  immer- 
sing. If  these  things,  therefore,  cannot  be  proved  to  be  duties  on  the  ground  of 
inference,  they  cannot  be  proved  at  all. 

The  utter  fallacy  of  this  argument,  however,  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that 
ic  ia  itself  a  specimen  of  inferential  reasoning, — cf  that  very  kind  of  reasoning 
which  it  is  employed  to  oppose.  It  is  nothing  more  or  less,  than  an  inferential 
argument,  its  whole  force  consisting  in  the  inference  deduced  from  it.  The  na- 
ked statement,  that  there  is  no  express  command  in  the  New  Testament  to  bap- 
tize infants,  proves  nothings  It  has. no  bearing  on  tlie  question  of  infant  bap- 
tism until  the  deduction  is  attached  to  it,  "  therefore  infants  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized." The  inference  then  drawn  from  the  statement  that  there  is  no  positive 
command  in  the  New  Testament  to  baptize  infants,  contains  the  very  substance 
and  sum  of  the  whole  argument.  Now,  as  such  an  argument,  on  the  principles 
of  the  Immersionalists,  is  insufficient  to  prove  infant  baptism,  it  follows,  of  course, 
that  it  is  insufficient  to  disprove  it,  and  therefore  this  argument  is  good  for  noth- 
ing and  falls  to  the  ground,  being  subverted  by  their  own  principles. 

2.  Another  argument  which  the  Immersionalists  urge  against  infant  baptism, 
has  been  thus  expressed:  "faith  and  repentance  are  prerequisite  to  baptism,  in- 
fants cannot  repent  and  believe,  therefore  infants  cannot  be  baptized." 

This  argument  is  unfortunate  in  several  particulars.  1.  It  is  based  on  the 
ground  that  baptism  has  a  spiritual  character,  and  is  above  the  ability  of  infunt".  In 
this  respect,  it  is  as  much  against  circumcision  as  against  baptism.  We  have 
ehewn  that  cireumcision  possessed  a  spiritual  character,  and^iad  the  same  mean- 
ing with  baptism       Faith  was  the  condition  of  circumcision,  as  it  is  of  baptism. 

12 


\ 


&0 

The  circumcioion  of  Abraham  was  the  sfeal  of  the  faith,  which  he  had  being  yet 
uncircumcised.  Of  course  his  faith  preceded  his  circumcision,  he  first  beUeved 
and  then  circumcised  bimsclf  as  a  token  of  his  fdith. 

Now  had  circumcision  remained  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  had  the  last 
command  of  our  blessed  Lord  been,  Go  teach  all  nations,  circumcising  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.,  would  not  the  Apostles  every  where  have  preached 
that  repentance  and  faith  were  prerequisite  to  circumcision,  and  would  they  not 
have  replied  to  the  multitude  on  the  day  of  Penticost,  who  exclaimed,  men  and 
brethren  what  shall  we  do,  repent  and  be  circumcised  every  one  7  &c.  To  us, 
this  is  self-evident,  for  as  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
they  could  not  have  circumcised  any  adult  converts  to  Christianity,  but  upon  a 
profession  of  their  repentance  and  faith.  llence,  it  is  manifest  that  faith  was  as 
necessary  to  constitute  fitness  for  circumcision  as  it  is  for  baptism^ 

Yet  children,  who  could  not  repent  and  believe,  who  could  not  understand  th'e 
spiritual  character  and  obligations  of  circumcision,  were  circumcised.  But  this 
was  an  unallowable  impropriety,  if  the  argument  we  are  considering  is  valid,  be- 
cause circumcision  was  above  their  understanding  and  ability. 

2.  This  argument  is  unfortunate,  because  it  proves  to  much  ;  for  if  it  proves 
that  infants  cannot  be  baptized,  it  proves  they  cannot  be  saved.  Faith  is  a  pre- 
requisite of  salvation  as  well  as  of  baptism.  (Mark,  xvi,  16.)  "  He  that  believ- 
eth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  belicveth  not  shall  be  damned." 
Repentance  is  also  a  perequisite  of  salvation.  (Luke  xiii,  3,)  "  Except  ye  re- 
pent ye  shall  all  likewise  perish."  Infants  cannot  repent  and  believe,  and  con- 
sequently  do  not  possess  the  character  which  is  indispensable  to  salvation. — 
Therefore,  they  cannot  be  saved.  If  this  argument  is  valid  against  infant  bap- 
tism, it  is  equally  valid  against  infant  salvation,  and  consistency  requires  the  Im- 
mersionalists  to  admit  it.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  dilemma.  Infant  dam. 
nation  as  surely  clings  to  this  argument  as  the  shadow  to  the  substance. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  reason  why  the  Immersionalists  suppbse  that  infants 
are  excluded  from  baptism,  is  because  the  words  repent  and  believe  go  before 
baptism.  If  this  is  adopted  as  a  principle  of  interpretation  in  one  case  it  may 
in  another.  Following  this  rule  of  explaining  passages  of  Scripture  by  the 
words  which  go  before,  and  the  following  text  must  be  understood  as  requiring 
us  to  suffer  feeble  persons  and  infants  to  go  without  food.  (II  Thes.  iii,  10.  j 
"This  we  commanded  you,  that  if  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat.'' 
Now,  sickly  and  feeble  persons  cannot  work,  infants  cannot  labor,  therefore  they 
must  not  be  suffered  to  eat.  The  same  rule  will  prove  also  that  unbaptized  per- 
sons cannot  be  saved,  and  consequently  that  baptism  is  a  saving  ordinance. — 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  Here  the  word  baptize  goes 
before  the  word  saved.    Hence,  he  who  is  baptized  shall  be  saved. 

3.  This  argument  is  defective  ni  another  particular,  it  is  better  than  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Immersionalists.  A  case  like  this  frequently  occurs  among  them. 
Adults  are  immersed  on  a  profession  of  their  faith  and  repentance  who  are  de- 
ceived and  who  fall  awav  ;  but  afterwards  thev  are  converted   and   return  to  the 


91 

church  declaring  that  when  lliey  were  immersed  they  were  strangers  to  a  saving 
change.  Yet  it  is  not  customary  to  re-baptize  them  ;  they  are  received  again 
to  the  communion  on  the  ground  of  their  confession  alone.  Now  the  baptism 
of  such  persons  is  valid  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  then  they  take  unbaptized  per- 
sons into  their  church,  and  are  guilty  of  the  same  sin  that  they  lay  to  the  charge 
of  Ptedobaptists.  But  if  it  is  valid  then  they  demand  of  persons  receiving  bap- 
tism not  real  or  genuine  faith  and  repentance,  but  what  seems  to  be  genuine  ; 
and  thus  they  nullify  ''their  views  of  the  spiritual  constitution  of  the  Christian 
djurch,  and  of  the  holy  design,  subjects  and  mode  of  baptism."  For  wherein  ia 
a  church  which  admits  adults  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  merely  because  they 
seem  to  be  Christians,  more  spiritual,  more  pure  and  more  holy  than  one  that  ex- 
tends the  privilege  of  baptism  to  infants;  who  do  not  seem  to  be  members  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  respecting  whom  the  Savior  positively  says,  "  of 
such  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  1"  Is  not  the  Paedobaptist  Church  after  all 
then,  a  more  truly  Spritual  Society  than  the  Immersionalist  ? 

There  is,  however,  one  feature  of  this  argument  which  on  the  principles  of 
the  Immersionalists  neutralizes  and  strips  it  of  force.  It  is  its  inferential  char- 
acter. They  reject  our  arguments  for  infant  baptism  because  they  are  deduc- 
tive rather  than  positive.  But  when  they  oppose  our  reasonings,  they  forget 
their  own  prisciples  and  proceed  to  eombat  our  practice  of  infant  baptism  with 
the  same  kind  of  weapons  vvhieh  they  contend  we  have  no  right  to  use.  They 
assail  us  with  inferential  arguments.  They  say,  there  is  no  command  in  the 
New  Testament  to  baptize  infants,  the  fair  inference,  therefore,  is  that  they  are 
not  to  be  baptized.  Faith  and  repentance  are  pre-re^juisites  of  baptism,  but  in- 
fants cannot  repent  and  believe,  the  legitimate  inference  therefore  is,  that  infants 
are  not  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Now,  if  we  have  no  right  to  prove  infant 
baptism  by  inference,  what  right  have  they  to  oppose  it  by  inference  ?  If  we 
cannot  prove  infant  baptism  by  inference,  how  can  they  disprove  it  by  inferencel 
On  the  principles  of  the  Immersionalists  then  this  argument  is  condemned;  and 
as  this  has  been  considered  the  chief  tower  of  their  strength,  the  very  pillar  of 
their  believers  baptism;  their  system  is  demolished  in  its  overthrow. 

4.  Another  argument  of  the  Immersionalists  is,  that  there  is  no  example  of 
infant  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  therefore  infants  are  not  entitled  to  bap- 
tism.. 

"  If  inferential  conclusions  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion concerning  infant  baptism  ;  if  the  ordinance  of  baptism  both  in  itself  and 
in  regard  to  the  subjects  of  it  is  a  positive  institute  ;  and  if  a  positive  institute 
cannot  be  established  by  reasoning,  but  requires  to  warrant  its  observance  expli- 
cit terms  of  institution"  as  the  Immersionalists  contend,  then  their  inferential 
arguments  do  not  disprove  infant  baptism.  This  argument,  therefore,  like  the 
preceding  being  inferential,  is  on  their  own  principles  inadmissible. 

But  if  it  should  be  granted  that  there  is  no  example  of  infant  baptism  in  the 
New  Testament ;  that  fact  of  itself  is  no  proof  that  infants  were  not  baptized  by 
the  Apostles.  The  Sabbath  was  instituted  by  God  immediately  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  great  work  of  creation,  to  be  a  memorial  of  it,  but  there  is  no  ex- 


9-2 

aniple  of  its  being-  observed  by  any  person,  nor  la  it  mentioned  after  its  institu- 
tion until  the  time  of  Moses.  But,  was  there  no  Sabbath  in  existence,  was 
there  no  observance  of  it  dtirinor  this  long-  period  of  2500  years  ?  Did  Enoch, 
Noah,  Abraliam  and  the  other  pious  patriarciis  live  in  the  entire  neglect  of  the 
Sabbath  ?  Is  this  a  reasonable  conclusion,  because  from  Adam  to  Moses  there 
is  no  example  of  its  observance  on  record? 

There  is  no  example  of  circumcision  from  the  days  of  Joshtra  to  the  birth  of 
John  the  Baptist.  Is  this  any  proof  that  the  Israelites  did  not  practice  circum- 
cision during  that  long  period.  There  is  no  example  of  a  single  baptism  among 
the  Thcssalonians.     Were  all  the  members  of  that  church  unbaptized  ] 

These  considerations  show  that  the  mere  fact  that  the  Scriptures  arc  silent 
respecting  any  particular  ordinance,  is  no  evidence  that  that  ordinance  was  not 
observed.  The  want  of  such  example  is  mere  negative  evidence,  and  can  have 
no  weight  against  positive  proof.  Supposing  then  that  there  is  no  example  of 
the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  New  Testament,  this  is  not  a  proof  that  none  wore 
baptized.  It  might  have  been  instituted  and  practised,  though  there  is  no  ex- 
ample of  its  having  been  observed.  The  argument  against  infant  baptism,  there- 
fore, which  is  founded  on  the  want  of  an  example,  has  no  force  at  all,  except  as 
an  inference  or  deduction  from  it.  But  this  we  are  not  bound  to  regard  as  of  any 
force  when  urged  by  Immersionalists  because  it  is  condemned  by  the  very  prin- 
ciples which  they  have  adopted  in  opposing  infant  baptism.  We  say  to  them, 
therefore,  adhere  to  your  own  principles.  We  shall  not  allow  you  to  combat  ua 
with  arguments  which  when  urged  by  us  you  disallow.  If  you  want  examples 
of  infant  baptism  to  convince  you  that  the  Apostles  practised  it,  deal  in  exam- 
ples against  it,  shew  your  positive  commands  against  it  in  the  Scriptures,  not 
your  inferential  conclusions  founded  on  negative  things,  or  nothings  ? 

But,  we  do  not  admit  that  there  is  no  account  of  infant  baptism  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  baptism  of  the  Iiousehold  of  Lydia  and  the  Jailor,  furnish  examples 
of  infant  baptism,  for  there  is  no  account  that  any  believed  in  these  honsehoJda 
except  Lydia  and  the  Jailor,  (as  we  have  proved  in  our  former  discourse)  and 
consequently  each  of  these  families  w^ere  baptized  on  the  faith  of  their  heads. — 
To  these  we  confidently  appeal,  and  hold  them  up  as  examples  of  infant  baptism. 

But  if  these  cases  are  not  satisfactory,  we  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Immer- 
eionalists  to  (I  Cor.  x,  1,  2,)  "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
be  ignorant  how  that  all  oun  fathers  (that  came  out  of  Egypt  by  Mcses; 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized." 

The  Immersionalists  do  not  deny  that  here  was  a  baptism  of  water,  they  con- 
tend only  that  the  Israelites  were  immersed.  But  if  it  was  a  case  of  water  bap- 
tism, it  was  also  a  case  of  infant  ba})tism.  "All  our  fathers,"  were  those 
who  were  overthrown  in  the  wildernnsF,  and  those  who  came  in  with  Joshua  in. 
to  the  possession  of  the  Gentiles.  What,  at  the  lime  referred  to,  were  these  lat- 
ter? They  were  " /(7/Ze  ones,"  children  which  in  that  day  had  no  knowledge 
hetween  good  and  evil.  (Kx.  x,  9,  10,  11,  24;  xii,  37.  Numb,  xiv,  28,  31.  Deut. 
i.  39  ;  V.  3.)     Moreover,  the  Apostle  would  not  that  we  should  be  ignorant,  that 


0$ 

these  "  lUlh  onei'"  and  their  fathers  were  all  baptizkd."  But  why  would  not 
the  Apostle  that  we  should  be  ignorant  of  this  circumstance  ?  Because  tliis  tiling 
(i.  e.  the  baptism  of  littlk  ones)  iiappened  unto  the  fathers  for  our  example, 
tipon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  (or  the  Gospel  dispensation)  are  come,  verses 
G,  1.1  •  Now  ALL  those  things  happened  unto  lliem,  and  were  our  r\.<iroi  (tu-poi) 
examples.  Tu-poi  here  translated  example,  generally  implies  some  institution 
under  the  Old  Testament,  appointed  to  represent  or  prefigure  something  future 
ucder  the  New,  and  may,  therefore,  be  in  some  measure  referred  to  the  head  of 
prophecy,  foretelling  by  things  as  the  letter  does  by  words.  Therefore,  when 
the  Apostle  says  that  he  would  not  that  we  should  be  ignorant  that  all  the 
fathers  were  baptized — for  this  thing  Iiappened  unto  them  for  our  example — hia 
meaning  probably  is,  that  the  baptism  of  those  fathers  under  the  Old  Testament 
was  a  preintimation  ;  the  sense,  substance,  or  solution  of  which  was  that  as  the 
fathers  and  their  Utile  ones  under  the  former  were  baptized  unto  Moses,  so  be- 
lievers and  their  children  under  the  Gospel  dispensation,  should  be  baptized  unto  or 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Here,  then,  is  the  very  example  of  infant 
baptism  adduced  which  has  been  so  loudly  demanded."  f 

We  conclude  with  the  following  reflections. 

1,  There  is  no  direct  or  positive  evidence  against  infant  baptism.  We  search 
the  New  Testament  in  vain  to  find  any  precept  or  command  prohibiting,  or  dis- 
countenancing  it.  All  the  arguments  urged  against  it  are  negative  and  inferen- 
entiai,  such  as  there  is  no  command  or  example  for  it  ;  infants  cannot  repent 
and  believe,  therefore  they  are  not  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  and  these  argu- 
ments, on  the  principles  of  the  Immersionalists,  are  inconclusive  and  inadmissi- 
ble. But,  if  they  were  not  subverted  on  their  own  principles,  they  can  be  prov- 
to  be  unsound  and  sophistical,  because  they  involve  consequences  and  lead  to 
conclusions  when  applied  to  other  things,  which  destroy  the  Christian  Sabbath, 
debar  females  from  communion,  and  overturn  parental  government. 

2.  Hence  wc  remark,  secondly,  that  the  rejection  of  infant  baptism  is  a  source 
of  pernicious  error.  It  compells  the  Immersionalists  to  maintain  that  the  Abra- 
liamic  covenant  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace,  but  a  mere  temporal  compact  in- 
eluding  only  promises  of  earthly  blessings  ;  that  circumcision,  the  seal  of  tho 
covenant,  was  not  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  but  a  badge  of  national 
distinctiouj*  that  God  had  no  body  of   true  saints  or   worshippers   under   the 

f  Christian  Intelligencer.     August  26, 1843. 

*  The  Jews  held  that  circumcision  was  an  ordinance  of  God  of  such  impor- 
tance that  the  observance  of  it  was  essential  to  Salvation.  Acts  XV,  1.  "And 
certain  men  which  came  down  from  Judea,  taught  the  brethren,  and  said,  except 
ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  Whitby 
and  Dr.  Gill  tell  us  that  it  was  a  common  maxim  among  them,  that  "God  reject- 
ed uncircamciscd  persons,  and  brought  them  down  to  Hell."  It  is  evident,  fur- 
thermore, from  Ro:n.  ii,  25 — 29  that  the  .Tews  believed  that  circumcision  posses- 
sed an  inherent  efficacy  which  benefitted  the  soul.  "  For  circumcision  verily 
profiteth  if  thoa  keep  the  law  :  but  if  thou  bo  a  breaker  of  tho  law,  thy  circum- 
cision is  made  uncircumcision.  For  he  is  not  a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly, 
neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  :  but  he  is  a  Jcw,wbich 
is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  m  th»  spirit,  and  not  in 


94 

yild  To«t(imont  dispensation  separate  from  tlic  nation  as  a  political  Lody.^'f 

The  «]irect  tendency  of  such  sentiments  is  to  diminish  the  value  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  and  to  regard  them  as  being  out  of  date,  of  no  use  to 
Christians,  and  as  having  no  claims  to  their  attention  and  obedience  ;  and  also 
to  produce  a  disrespect  of  the  sanctity  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  and  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  Christians  to  keep  it  as  holy  time.  Hence,  many  of  the  Immersionalista 
reject  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and  keep  the  seventh  day  like  the  Jews  ;  and  to  be 
coflsietent  they  ought  as  a  body  to  be  Sabbatarians.  These  views  tend  to  pro- 
duce an  extensive  disregard  of  family  religion,  family  prayer,  and  the  religious 
education  of  children.  Another  result  of  these  views  is  to  exalt  a  religious  rite 
v.hich  has  no  inherent  efTicacy  above  genuine  piety,  and  to  produce  a  vehement 
ze.td  about  a  mere  ordinance  which  throws  aside  all  reserve,  overleaps  the  bounds 
of  propriety  and  even  decency,  and  seriously  interferes  with  other  denominaliona 
in  the  exercise  of  t!»e  rights  of  conscience,  and  the  enjoyment  of  religious  liberty 
in  the  worship  of  God  according  to  their  construction  of  the  word  of  God.* 

the  letter;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but  of  God."  Finally,  that  the  Jews  at- 
tached &  spiritual  meaning  and  efficacy  to  circumcision,  is  manifest  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Philo,  a  Jewisli  writer,  who  was  born  75  3'ears  before  Josephue,  the 
Jewish  historian.  Philo  was  the  contemporary  of  the  Apostles.  He  says,  "cir- 
cumcision taaglit  the  cutting  off  of  all  pleasures  and  affections."  Eleewhere  he 
says,  *'  it  is  a  symbol  of  two  things  particularly  ;  the  one  is  the  cutting  off  of 
pleasuree.and  the  other  is  the  removal  of  arrogancy,  that  grievous  disease  of  the 
8oul."  In  another  place  he  calls  purity  or  chastity,  "the  circumcision  of  cir- 
cumcision." Gill's  commentary  on  Rom.  ii,  29.  How  could  circumcision  have 
been  a  badge  of  national  distinction,  when  other  nations  also  practised  it  1  Jose- 
phue informs  us  that  circumcision  was  observed  by  the  Arabians,  Phenicians, 
Syrians  and  Egyptians,  and  it  is  observed  by  Mohomtnedans  to  this  day. 

f  That  God  had  among  the  Jews  a  separate  body  of  true  saints,  is  evident  from 
Ilia  worship  and  service  which  he  established  among  them,  including  a  ritual, 
moral  law.  Temples  and  Synagogues  in  each  of  wiiich  a  body  of  worshippers  as- 
eembled  every  sabbath  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  engage  in  acts  of  devotion; 
from  the  qualifications  required  of  his  ow'n  worshipperp,  viz :  right  affections, 
faith  and  holy  obedience;  from  the  distinction  kept  up  through  the  Scriptures 
between  Israel  aller  the  flesh,  and  after  the  spirit,  between  the  Jew  inwardly  and 
the  Jew  outwardly,  between  those  who  were  circumcised  in  the  flesh  and  those 
who  wero  circumcised  in  the  lieart,  It  alsoappears  from  the  terms  used  to  denote  a 
eeparatc  body  of  true  worshippers.viz:  Zio.v*  Jeiiiusalem,  &c.  from  the  predictions 
of  the  Prophets  that  this  Zion  should  be  enlarged  by  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles ; 
from  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  xi,  that  the  Oiristian  Church,  is 
only  the  ancient  Zios  continued  with  enlarged  privileges ;  and  from  many  inci- 
dental expressions,  ouch  as,  '•  God  had  recorded  his  name  among  them,  he 
dwelt  among  them,  had  made  his  mind  and  secrets  known  among  them,  had  a- 
monglhem  a  holy  people, -who  wcie  his  annointed,  his  saints,  who  were  dear  to 
him,  his  peculiar  treasure,  his  jewels',  as  the  apple  of  his  eye,  and  to  whom  per- 
tained the  adoption,  and  the  glory  of  the  covenantF,  and  the  giving  of  the  law, 
and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promisee,  and  of  whom  as  concerning  the  flesh 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever." 

*  .John  Bunyan  had  many  severe  conflicts  with  his  rigid  brethren,  of  whose 
disquieting  practices  he  complains  in  the  follo\ying  manner.  "Assaults  I  say, 
upon  this  congregation  by  times,  for  no  less  than  these  sixteen  or  eighteen  years; 
yea,  myself  they  have  sent  for,  and  endeavored  to  persuade  me  to  break  commun- 
ton  with  my  brethren  ;  also  with  many  others  they  have  often  tampered,  ifhapi- 
ly  their  seeds  of  division  might  take.  Neither  did  they  altogether  fail  of  their 
purpose  ;  for  some  thsy  did  rent  and  dismember  from  us  ;  but  none  but  those  of 


95 

And  last,  tliough  not  least,  of  all  ihcy  tend  to  ititroduco  close  coianiunion,  and 
shut  awey  from  tlie  table  of  the  Lord  his  own  dear  people.  "  Persons  nia_'-  be  i:s 
holy  ae  St.  John  ;  they  may  commune  with  God  from  day  to  day,  and  have  fel- 
lowship with  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ ;  but  if  they  have  not  been  immersed,  thoy  N 
are  prohibited  from  coming  to  tlie  Lord's  table.  And  no  apology  for  such  treat- 
ment isofFered.  They  may  urge  their  soridus  convictions  of  the  validity  of  sprink- 
ling; they  may  urge  physical  debility,  which  in  the  judgment  of  medical  men, 
would  render  immersion  fatal,  or  any  thing  else  however  rational  ;  but  all  to  no 
purpose.  It  is  enough  for  Immersionalists  to  know  that  the^  have  nOl  been  im- 
mersed; and  with  this  knowledge  they  debar  them  from  {heir  cornmunion,  as 
though  they  were  unbelievers,  though  they  have  met  and  prayed  with  these  soma 
individuals,  and  have  walked  with  them  to  the  house  of  God  in  company.*  And  at 

whom  now  they  begin  to  be  ashamed  ;  tJicJudgmetii  of  God  so  following  their 
design,  that  person's  which  then  they  prevailed  upon,  are  now  a  stain  and  reproach 
/o  re%Jon."— Bunyan'fl  Works,  Vol.  3,-  p  312.  Ed.  New  Haven.  N.  Whiting, 
publisher. 

Richard  Baxter  complains  of  them  in  these  word.s  :  "  the  main  scope  of  their 
endeavors  in  public  and  private  is  to  propagate  their  opinions,  and  so  strangely 
are  they  transported  with  a  desire  to  bring  men  to  their  opinion,  as  if  they  Wete 
never  in  a  happy  condition  till  they  are  re-baptised,  or  as  if  there  Were  no  hope 
of  the  salvation  ot  the  holiest  men  till  then,'  and  as  if  there  were  little  more  than 
this  required  to  make  men  happy.  Fdr  this  is  the  doctrine  that  they  most  eager- 
ly press  ■;  and  if  tlVey  cdn  get  the  profanest  persons  to  embrace  their  opinions, 
and  be  re-baptized,  ihejr  usually  make  more  of  them,  and  shew  more  affection  to 
them  than  to  the  most  godly  that  differ  from  them." 

Again,  he  says  in  another  place,'  "  Where  the  Gospel  before  prospered;  and 
Christians  spent  their  time  and  conference  in  the  edifying  of  each  others  eouIf, 
and  in  heavenly  duties,  and  mutual  ssslstanccr  and  lived  together  in  unity  and 
love,  according  to  the  great  command  of  Christ  ;•  they  ordinarily  turn  all  this  to 
vain  janglinge,  and  enipty,  windy,  unprofitable  disputes^  whifth  he  that  is  the 
most,  gracious,  doth  taste  the  least  sweetness  in  ;  and  they  ttfrn  their  unity  into 
divisions  and  factions,  and  their  amity  into  jealousies  and  eohtentions  ;  erne  is 
for  this,  and  another  for  that ;  and  they  seldom"  meet,"  but  they  have  jarrings  antl 
cohtondings,  and  look  on  one  another  with  strangeness,  if  riot  with  secret  heart 
burnings  and  envying?,  studying  all  they  cian  to  undermine  Cct'ch  <i>thef,  and  every 
man  to  strengthen  his  ov?n  party." — Infant  Church  membership  and  Baptism, 
pp  143,  14«. 

John  Bulkley  of  Connecticut,  says  of  them',  17£9,  "If  they  can  but  gain  per- 
sons to  their  opinions,  furnish  them  with  some  objections  against  the  established 
religion  of  the  country,  render  them  prompt  and  ready  at  invective  and  railery, 
and  prevail  on  them  to  torsake  obr  assemblies,  (though  they)  neglect  family  pray- 
er, profane  the  Sabbath,  &c.,its  enotigh,  and  there  they  leave  them;  they  are  now 
good  Christians." 

*  The  celebrated  Robert  Hall  rejected  close  communion.  He  says  *'  When 
we  engage  a  Christian  brother  to  present  supplications  t6  God  in  our  behalf,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  we  have  fellowship  with  him,  not  less  real  or  spiritual 
than  at  the  Lord's  table,  f^rom  these  considerations  it  is  natural  to  infer,  that 
no  scruple  ought  to  be  entertained  respecting  the  lawfulness  of  uniting  to  com- 
memorate our  Saviour's  death,  with  those  with  whom  we  feci  ourselves  at  liber- 
ty to  join  in  every  other  branch  of  religious  worship.  Where  no  attempt  is  made 
to  obscure  its  import,  or  impair  its  simplicity,  by  the  introduction  of  human  cer- 
emonies, but  it  is  proposed  to  be  celebrated  in  tha  manner  which  we  apprehend 
to  be  perfectly  consonant  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  it  would  seem  less  reasonable  to 
refuse  to  co-operate  in  this  branch  of  religion  than  in  any  other,  because  it  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  a  memorial  of  the  gfreatest  instance  of  love  that  was  ever  exhibited, 


96 

the  same,  they  Jo  not  'lesitate  to  sit  down  at  the  table  of  tlie  Lord  with  pcrsonsi 
whose  pitty  they  ho t9  every  reason  to  doubt  thcmseivcF,  merely  because  they 
have  been  imnjersed."* 

Now,  we  cheerfully  admit  that  there  are  some  things  included  in  this  catalogue 
of  errore,  resulting  from  the  denial  of  infant  baptism  that  cannot  be  laid  to  the 
charge  of  all  who  reject  it.  But  that  some  are  happily  exempted  from  ihesemis'akea 
ii  not  owing  to  their  belief.  They  practise  belter  than  they  believe,  but  the  ten- 
dency of  rejecting  infant  baptism  unquestionably  is  to  these  tilings?,  for  it  is  an  er- 
ror fraught  with  many  other  errors. 

We  remark,  therefore,  linally,  that  the  observance  of  an  exclusive  mode  of 
baptism,  and  the  rejection  of  infant  baptism,  are  errors  which  all  true  Christiana 
are  bound  to  discountenance  and  resist.  It  is  a  heresy,  a  denial  ofthe  faith  once 
delivered  to  tlie  saints  to  make  all  the  principles  of  Christian  union  and  fellow- 
ship subordinate  to  the  observance  of  a  religious  rite  in  a  particular  manner.  It 
is  a  wide  departure  iVom  the  simplicity  of  the°Gospel,when  soundness  in  the  faitli, 
purity  of  character,  holy  and  heavenly  principle?,  and  virtues  which  are  the  fruits 
ofthe  Spirit,  and  which  would  exalt  angels,  are  regarded  as  nothing  in   compe- 

as  well  as  the  principal  pledge  of  Christian  fraternity.  It  must  appear  surprising 
that  the  rite  which  of  all  others  is  most  adapted  to  cement  mutual  attachment, 
and  which  is  in  a  great  measure  appointed  for  that  purpose,  should  be  fixed  upon 
as  the  line  of  demarkation,  the  impassable  barrier,  to  seperate  and  disjoin  tlie  fol- 
lowers of  Christ.  He  wiio  admits  his  fellow  christians  to  share  in  every  other 
spiritual  privilege,  while  he  prohibits  his  approach  to  the  Lord's  table  entertains  a 
view  of  that  institution  diametrically  opposite  to  what  has  usually  prevailed  ;  he 
must  consider  it  not  so  much  in  the  liglit  of  a  commemoration  of  his  Saviour's 
death  and  passion,  as  a  religious  test^  designated  to  ascertain  and  establish  an  a- 
greement  in  points  not  fundamental.  According  to  this  notion  of  it,  it  is  no  lon- 
ger a  symbol  of  out  common  Christianity,  it  is  the  badge  and  criterion  of  a  parly, 
a  mark  of  discrimination  applied  to  distinguish  the  nice  shades  of  difference  a- 
mong  Christians." — Terms  of  Communion,  p.  291.     Works,  vol.  1. 

Bunyan  also  censures  the  close  communion  principles  of  his  brethren.  He 
observes,  "  and  now  I  say  again,  the  world  may  well  wonder,  when  they  see  you 
deny  holy  men  of  God  that  liberty  of  tlie  communion  of  saints,  which  you  mo- 
nopolize to  yourselves:  and  tiiough  they  do  not  understand  the  grounds  of  pro- 
fession, or  commnnion ;  yet  they  can  sec,  I  say,  these  holy  men  of  God,  in  all 
visible  acts  of  holiness,  are  not  one  inch  behind  you.  Yea,  I  will  put  it  to  your- 
selves, if  those  many,  yea,  very  many,  who  thus  severely  (but  with  how  little 
ground,  is  seen  by  holy  men  of  God,)  you  deny  communion  with,  are  not  as  good, 
«s  holy,  as  unblameable  in  lifej  as  sound,  if  not  sounder  in  the  faith  than  many  a. 
mong  ourselves :  here  only  they  make  the  stop,  they  cannot,  without  light,  be 
driven  into  water  baptism,  I  mean  after  our  notion  of  it ;  but  what  if  they  were, 
it  would  be  little  sign  to  me  that  they  were  sincere  with  God.  To  conclude  this  : 
when  you  have  proved  that  water  baptism  is  essential  to  church  communion,  and 
that  the  church  may,'  by  the  word  of  God  both  bar  and  forever  shut  out  those,  far 
better  than  ourselves,  that  have  not,  according  to  our  notion,  been  baplizod  with 
water,  then  it  will  be  time  enough  to  talk  of  ground  for  so  doing.  In  the  mean- 
time, I  must  take  leave  to  tell  you,  there  is  not  in  all  the  Bible  one  syllablk 
FOR  SUCH  A  PRACTICE,  whcrefore  your  great  cry  about  your  order  is  wordless, 
and  therefore  faithless,  and  is  a  mere  human  invention." — Bunyan's  Works,  vol. 
iii,  p.  p.  346,  347,    Ed.  New  Haven. 

*  Porter,  in  Methodist  Msgtlzine 


97 

lition  with  a  mere  religions  rile.  Exalting  ceremonies  above  jusUcc,  mercy  and 
the  fear  of  God  is  depressing  vital  religion,  and  making  the  word  of  God  of  nona 
effect.  In  this  elevation  of  a  religious  rite  above  vital  pietyi  therefore  is  involv- 
ed the  very  principle  of  ancient  Pharaaaism,  Romanism,  and  modern  Peuseyism. 
To  such  a  principle  no  man  is  under  obligation  to  yield.  On  the  other  hand,  ev- 
ery man  who  feels  concerned  for  the  welfare  of  a  pure  Christianity,  is  bound  to 
resist  it  by  every  means  of  Christ's  appointment,  nor  to  cease  opposing  until  it  is 
banished  from  the  world. 

We  know  of  no  principle  in  the  Christian  system  vvhicli  requires  us  lo  refuse 
to  acknowledge  any  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  as  brethren,  who  give  evidence  that 
Christ  has  received  them.  "  To  our  minds  there  is  something  very  repulsive,  in 
the  idea  of  confining  our  affections  within  narrower  limits  than  the  love  of  Jesus; 
of  making  any  consideration  a  bar  to  Christian  communion  and  fellowship  at  the 
Lord's  table  and  elsewhere  which  docs  not  exclude  persons  from  the  heart  of  Je- 
aus^  and  prevent  them  from  being  the  subjects  of  his  intercession  within  the  vail." 

Hence,  we  prefer  our  own  practice  of  infant  baptism,  open  communion,  and  ad- 
ministering the  ordinance  of  baptism,  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring:  We  believe 
ibis  practice  lobe  Scriptural  and  agreeable  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  we  wish  to 
live  in  the  enjoyment  of  it  unmolested.  Knowing  our  attachment  to  our  own 
views,  we  trust  that  we  shall  be  respected  while  we  adhere  to  them  ;  if  the  Ira. 
mersionalists  choose  to  reject  the  covenant  and  its  seal,  we  choose  to  respect 
both,  and  not  to  follow  their  example. 

'  We  have  studied  this  matter — we  understand  it  ^  and  having  made  up  our 
minds  carefully  and  prayerfaily,  we  are  settled  in  our  views  and  shall  not  be 
moved  away  from  them.  If  our  system  contains  errors,  we  believe  them  to  be  of 
a  less  hurtful  character  than  those  which  cleave  to  the  views  of  those  who  would 
persuade  us  to  renounce  infant  baptism,  and  if  we  have  to  answer  for  our  belief 
and  practice  at  the  judgment  seat,  we  cheerfully  assume  the  responsibility  of 
maintaining  them  and  answering  for  them  ;'for  we  say,  without  any  qualification, 
that  we  had  rather  be  judged  for  having  attached  less  importance  to  the  rites  of 
religion  than  to  true  piety,  even  if  we  have  failed  to  give  them  their  just  exalta- 
tion. We  cannot  consent  while  we  have  our  reason,  to  give  them  an  undue  im- 
portance, if  thereby  we  must  shut  from  the  table  of  the  Lord,  a  portion  of  his  own 
people. 


iPPENDlX. 


The  verdict  of  eminent  Pcedobaptist  writers  on  the  meaning  or  the  word  bap- 

tixe. 

s 

Turretin.  "  The  term  baptism  is  of  Greek  origin,  deduced  from  the  word 
Bapto,  which  is  to  tinge  and  imbue.  Baptizo,  to  dye  and  to  immerse.  He  says, 
also,  the  word  Baptizo,  by  a  metalepsis,  is  taken  in  the  sense  to  wash.  Mark  vii 
4.  Nor  ought  we  otherwise  to  understand  the  bapMsm  of  cups,  of  potg,  and  of 
beds,  in  use  among  the  Jews.  And  the  divers  baptisms  enjoined  upon  them. 
Heb.  ix,  10,  and  the  superstitious  rvashings  received  from  the  tradition  of  the  el- 
ders, Mark  vii,  4,  5." 

Dr.  Owen.  "  Baptizo  sginifies /o  z/jasJ^  ;  as  instances  out  of  all  authors  may 
be  given  ;  Suidas,  Hesychius,  .Tulius  Pollux,  PHAVORiNusand  Eustachius. 
No  one  instance  can  be  given  in  the  Scripture,  wherein  Baptizo  doth  necessarily 
signify  either  to  dip  or  plunge.  I  must  sa}',  and  will  make  it  good,  that  no  hon- 
est man  who  understands  the  Greek  tongue,  can  deny  the  word  to  signify  to 
wash,  as  well  as  to  dip.  Baptismoa  (baptism,)  is  any  kind  of  washing,  whether 
by  dipping  or  sprinkling  ;  putting  the  thing  to  be  washed  into  the  water,  or  ap- 
plying the  water  to  the  thing  itself  to  be  washed." 

Whitby.  Remarking  on  Acts  x,  48,  "  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized," he  says  :  "  Whom  did  he  command  to  do  this  t  the  Gentiles  1  It  seem- 
eth  at  first  sight  absurd,  that  they  who  were  not  yet  baptized  should  baptize  oth- 
ers :  or  was  it  the  Jews  that  came  then  with  him  ?  they  seem  only  to  be  lay- 
brethren,  who  only  were  permitted  to  baptize  in  case  of  necessity  ;  it  seemelh, 
therefore,  reasonable  to  say,  that  he  commanded  water  to  be  brought/or  their  bap" 
iism,  and  then  performed  himself  the  office,  or  left  it  to  be  done  by  gifted  per- 
sons."—Commentary  on  the  New  Testament. 

Doddridge.  His  paraphraze  on  Acts  x,  47,  *•  Can  any' forbid  water,  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized,"  is  in  these  words  :  "  Then  Peter  yielding  to  the  force 
of  evidence,  however  contrary  to  his  former  prejudices,  with  great  propriety  an- 
sweredy  can  any  one  reasonably  forbid  that  water  should  be  brought."  His  note 
on  this  passage  is  as  follows  ;  "  Erasmus  supposes  a  trajection  or  transposition 
of  the  words  here,  as  if  it  had  been  said,  "  who  can  forbid  that  these  should  be 
baptized  with  water."  But  it  seems  most  natural  to  understand  it,  (as  Dr. 
Whitby  does)  "  who  can  forbid  that  water  should  be  brought.'"  In  which  view  of 
the  clause  one  would  naturally  conclude,  they  were  baptized  by  pouring  water 
upon  (hem,  rather  than  by  plunging  them  in  it." 


100 

Liglitfoot.  "  Tlie  application  of  water  ia  necessary  for  the  essence  of  baptism  ; 
but  the  appJication  in  this,  or  tJtat  mode  indicates  a  circumstance.  To  denote  this 
ablution  by  a  sacramental  Bign^  the  sprinkling  of  water  is  equally  sufficient  as 
immersion  into  water,  since  the  former  in  reality  argues  an  ablution  and  purifica- 
tion as  well  as  the  latter." 

Vossius.  " Bzpi'izo  Bigmfles  to  waxli  or  purify.  It  is  transferred  to  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  is  to  say,  because,  that  he  miglit  wash  (or  purify)  the 
eoul,  he  is  poured  out  on  it,  as  jcater  is  poured  ;  even  as  Joel  epeaks,  ii,  28,  and 
from  thence  Peter,  Acts  ii.  17,  likewise  Paul,  Tit.  iii^  6.' 

Beza.  "The  reality  of  baptism  is  the  sprinkling  of  the  SZooc?  of  Jesus  Christ 
for  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness,  which  are,  as  it 
were,  displayed  before  our  eyes  in  the  sign  of  outward  sprinkling.  Are  they 
therefore  improperly  baptized,^who  are  sprinkled  witli  water  only  cast  on  them  ? 
No :  what  is  in  that  action  (of  baptizing)  merely  substantial,  (or  strictly  essen- 
tial.) to  wit ;  the  ablution  of  water,  is  rightly  observed  by  the  Church  (by  sprink- 
ling.) But  Baptize  signifies  to  dye,  or  to  stain,  seeing  it  comes  immediately 
from  Bapto  ;  and  since  the  things  to  be  dyed  or  stained  are  (commonly)  dipped, 
it  signifies  to  7nake  wet  and  to  dip," 

Casanbon.  ''Immersion  is  not  nT^.v.'flry  to  baptism.  The  opinion  (insisted 
on  of  immersing  the  whole  body  in  the  ceremony  of  baptism)  has  been  deserved- 
ly long  since  exploded  ;  for  the  force  and  energy  of  this  mystery  consist  not 
in  that  ciroumstanre/' 

Cradock.  "Sprinkling  is  as  significanf,as  to  the  main  ends  ofhaptism  as  dipping*. 
Baptising  is  any  kind  of  religious  irashing  or  sprinkling,  m  the  name,  &c..  duly 
performed  by  a  person  rightly  qualified  for  it." 

Usher.  "The  word  baptism  in  general  signifietli  any  washing.  Neither  dip- 
ping Is  essential  to  the  eacramer.t  of  baptism,  or  eprinkling  ;  but  only  washing 
and  applying  water  to  the  body  as  a  cleanser  of  the  filth  thereof." 

Chemnitz.  "  Whether  the  application  of  the  water  be  made  by  dipping,  ting, 
ing,  pouring,  or  spriJikling,  it  is  a  Baptixation  ;  for  it  is  a  cleansing  or  ablution 
by  the  washing  of  water :  and  immersion  under  water  is  not  necessarily  required 
to  washing." 

Peter  Martyr.  "  But  this  purification,  whether  wc  arc  dipped,  or  perfused,  or 
sprinkled,  or  by  what  ever  mode'  wc  are  washed  witli  water,  is  very  appositely 
represented  in  ba])tism." 

Zanchius.  "  In  what  manner  baptism  is  to  ba  administered,  M'hether  the  per- 
sons should  be  dipped  in  water,  or  only  their  heads  sprinkled  with  water,  Christ 
hath  no  where  determined.  'J'bis  word  signifies  as  well  to  tinge  and  simply  to 
icaslt,  as  to  dip." 

ParfPUH.  "Baptism  among  the  Greeks,  is  any  kind  of  washing  or  ablution, 
vrvhi-ther  it  be  by  immersion  or  aspersion." 


■*  101 

Musculug.  "  As  to  tlie  immersion  of  tho  infant  to  be  baptized,  we  judge  tliat 
this  is  not  so  necessary,  as  that  the  Churches  were  not  free  to  baptize,  either  by 
dipping  or  sprinkling." 

Ursinus.  "  Baptism  signifieth  a  dipping  in  water  or  sprinkling  with  water. — 
For  washing  may  be  either  by  dipping  or  sprinkling  ;  and  baptism  is  a  washing.'* 

Pococke.  "^he  word  baptism  does  not  necessarily  denote  an  immersion  of 
the  whole  body  in  water,  since  it  is  spoken  of  him  who  only  intinges  even  his 
hand,  according  to  the  frequent  use  of  Jewish  tradition  and  discipline.  It  is  some- 
times used  for  that  slighter  degree  of  washing,  which  is  performed  by  the  affu' 
sion  of  water,  and  it  indifferently  belongs  to  bothy 

Mark.  ''  The  action  to  be  performed  by  water  is  ablution  ;  whether  by  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  body,  or  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring  ;  since  the  word  bap- 
tize is  a  general  term,  denoting  a  washing." 

Pictet.  "  The  word  baptismns,  (baptism)  does  not  less  denote  sprinkling 
than  immersion.  The  Muscovites  err,  who  teach  that  immersion  is  the  essence 
of  baptism  ;  and  those  Greeks,  who  in  the  council  of  Florence,  called  the  Latins 
unbaptized,  were  delirious." 

Poole.  "From  hence  it  will  not  follow,  that  dipping  is  essential  to  baptism  t 
the  washing  of  the  soul  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  (the  thing  signified  by  bap- 
tism) being  expressed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  water,  as  well  as  by  dipping." 

John  Westley.  "Baptism  ig  performed  by  washing,  dipping  or  sprinkling  the 
person  is  the  name,  &.c.  I  say,  by  washing,  dipping  or  sprinkling ;  because  it 
is  not  determined  in  the  Scripture,  in  which  of  these  ways  it  shall  be  done,  nei- 
ther by  any  express  precept,  nor  by  any  such  example  as  clearly  proves  it ;  nor 
by  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  vvord  baptize.  Tliat  washing  and  cleansing  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  is  testified  by  the  greatest  scholars  and 
most  proper  judges  in  this  matter." 

Adam  Clark. "  "  Bapto  and  baptizo  mean  both  to  dip  and  sprinkle.  Tiiose  who 
are  washed  or  sprinkled  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.,  I  believe  to 
be  equally  so  ;  (i.  e.  evangelically  baptized,)  and  the  repeliiion  of  such  a  baptism 
I  believe  to  be  profane." 

Dr.  Dwight.  "  The  body  of  learned  Critics  and  Lexicographers^  declare  that 
the  original  meaning  of  both  these  words,  (Bapto  and  Baptizo)  is  to  tinge,  dye, 
slain,  or  color;  and  that  when  it  means  immersion, it  is  only  in  a  secondary  and  oc- 
casional sense  ;  derived  from  the  fact,  that  such  things  as  are  dyed,  stained,  or 
colored,  are  often  immersed  for  this  end.  This  interpretation  of  the  words,  also, 
they  support  by  such  a  series  of  quotations,  as  seem  unanswerably  to  evince,  that 
this  v/as  the  original  classical  meaning  of  these  v/ords.  I  have  examined  almost 
one  hundred  instances,  in  which  th.-o  word  Baptizo,  and  its  derivatives,  are  used 
in  tho  New  Testament ;  and  four  in  tho  Septuigint :  thes",  so  far  as  I  havo 
observed,  being  all  the  instances,  contained  in  both.  By  this  oxarn-nution,  it  is 
to  my  apprehension  evident,  that  the  following  tilings  are  true:    That  the  prim-- 


102 

rymeanijig  of  thesf  tenns  is  chansing  ;  the  effect,  not  (he  mode  of  washing;  that 
the  mode  is  usually  referred  to  incidenlally,  where  ever  these  words  are  men- 
tioned ;  and  that  this  is  always  the  case,  where  ever  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ia 
mentioned,  and  a  reforence  made,  at  the  same  lime,  to  the  mode  of  administration. 
■That  these  words,  although  capable  of  denoting  any  mode  of  washing,  whether 
W  affusion,  Bprinkling^,  or  immersion  ;  (since  cleansing  was  familiarly  accom- 
pliehed  by  the  Jews  in  all  these  ways,)  yet,  in  many  instances,  cannot  without 
obvious  impropriety,  bo  made  to  signify  immersion  ;  and  in  others  cannot  signi- 
fy  it  all." 

Knapp.  "  If  it  is  asked,  liowever,  if  immersion  is  so  essential,  that  one  who 
has  been  only  sprinkled,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  properly  a  baptized  person  ! 
it  may  be  answered.  No  '.  Nothing  more  is  essential  to  the  external  part  of 
baptism,  than  that  water  be  used,  (Actsx,  47,  John  iii,  5,)  and  that  the  subject, 
by  the  colemn  use  of  this  rite,  be  conseerated  to  Father,  &c.  and  be  pledged  to 
obey  the  Christian  doctriiit",  Math,  xxviii,  19.  The  washing  of  water  is  consid- 
ered aa  the  symbol  oPthe  purification  of  sins  ;  and  this  can  be  signified  as  woU 
by  affusion  aa  by  xmxnereioa.''' —Knapp' s  Theology,  Vol.  ii,  \  139,  p  I."}?. 

Thomas  Blake,  an  opponent  of  R.  Baxter.  "  In  baptism  there  is  not  only  wa- 
ter, but  the  application  of  the  person  to  the  water  in  dipping,  or  the  water  to  the 
person  by  inftision,  or  sprinkling.  The  word  in  Scripture  use  comprises  any 
washing;  and  therefore  in  Baptism  it  is  of  itself  indifferent." 

Richard  Baxter.  "My  sixih  argument  shall  be  against  the  usual  manner  of 
their  Baptizing  as  it  is  by  dipping  over  head  in  a  river  or  other  cold  water  ;  viz : 
That  which  is  a  plain  breach  f-fthc  i,ixth  command,  thou  shall  not  kill,  w  no  ordi- 
nance of  God,  but  a  most  heinous  sin.  But  the  ordinary  practice  of  baptizing  by 
dipping  overhead  in  cold  water  as  necessary,  is  a  plain  breach  of  the  sixth  command- 
ment. Therefore  iti^  no  ordinance  of  God,  hvt  an  heinous  sin.  And  as  Mr.  Cra- 
dock  in  his  book  of  Gospel  Liberty,  shewF,  the  magistrates  ouglit  to  restrain  it ;  to 
save  the  lives  «)f  their  Bubjecte.  That  this  is  flat  murder  and  no  better,  beincr 
ordinarily  and  generally  used,  is  undeniable  to  any  undcrstandia'^  man  ;  for 
that  which  directly  teiuieih  to  overthrow  men's  lives,  being  wilfully  used  is  plain 
murder;  bat  the  ordinary  or  general  dipping  of  people  over  head  in  cold  water, 
doth  tend  directly  to  the  overthrow  of  iheir  health  and  lives  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
murder."  To  which,  Mr.  Tombep,  Mr.  Baxter's  antagonist  having  said,  there 
is  no  necessity  of  its  being  in  cold  water,  he  replie.f,  "His  warm  bath  would  be 
&\eo  dangerous  to  vm"  many  persons  ;  and  where  should  this  bath  be  prepared? 
If  in  privat*-,  it  will  Fcarce  bo  a  solemn  engaging  act.  If  in  the  meetino-  place 
ofthc  church,  then  it  will  take  no  sni.iH  room,  and  require  no  small  stir  to  have 
a  bathing  place  and  water  wherein  to  dip  people  overhead.  And  if  they  do  not 
run  home  quickly  before  they  are  well  engaged,  the  hot  bath  will  be  turned  into 
a  cold  one  to  them,  and  make  them  rctponltbis  badge  of  repentance,  except  they 
will  have  all  things  leadv.  and  be  put  to  bed  also  in  the  churoli  before  the  peo 
pie." 

Baxter  urgiie?  ogainst  tlie  opiu  on  tli'it  ''  dipping  was  the  cus-tom  of  Scripture 
ti'.ns:,"  as  foiiov/i.     "Tt  is  liot  y^-l  provt-d  by  any  ;   the   Jailor   waa    baptized   in 


103 

th»  night  in  bis  houso,  tlicrefore  not  likely  over  head  in  that  country  where  wa- 
ter was  80  scarce.  The  Eunuch  might  well  be  eaid  to  go  down  into  the  water, 
for  the  country  was  mountainous  and  the  brooks  were  down  in  the  bottoms. 
Even  the  river  of  Enon,  where  John  baptized,  because  there  wag  much  water,  ia 
found  by  travellers  to  be  a  small  brook  that  a  man  may  almost  step  ovef. 

The  word  in  the  original  signifies  to  tcash  as  well  as  to  dip,  and  so  ia  taken 
when  applied  to  other  things,  as  Mark  vii,  4,  8.  The  thing  signified  ia  set  forth 
by  the  phraze  of  washing  or  sprinkling,  and  the  sign  need  not  exceed  the  thing  $ig- 
nijied.  Chnat  hath  not  appointed  the  measure  of  water,  nor  the  manner  of  wash- 
ing, no  more  than  he  hath  appointed  in  the  Lord's  Supper  what  quantity  of  bread 
and  wine  each  must  eat  and  drink ;  and  as  it  would  be  but  folly  for  any  to  think 
that  men  must  need  fill  themselves  full  of  bread  and  wine;  because  it  best  eignifies 
the  fulness  of  Christ ;  so  it  is  no  better  to  say,  that  we  must  needs  be  washed 
all  over,  because  it  best  signifies  our  burial  with  Christ,  A  little  may  signify  as 
well  as  much,  as  a  clod  of  earth  does  in  giving  possession  of  much  lands,  and  a 
corn  of  pepper  signifies  our  homage  for  much.'' — Plain  Scriptureproof  of  Infants 
Church  membershif  and  baplism,-  pp  134,  135,  138. 

These  quotations  from  Peedobaptists  wrilefs,  which  might  be  multiplied,  (ad 
in^nitem)  prove  that  they  have  not  fallen  out  by  the  way,  and  that  they  have  not 
given  their  verdict  so  unanimously  in  favor  of  immereion  as  an  exclusive  mode 
of  baptism,  aa  has  been  represented. 


ADDENDA. 


The  antiquity  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  In  the  English  Church,  ia  proved  b^ 
the  circular  letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  York,  addressed  to  the  Clergy  of  his  Die- 
oeee  in  the  reign  of  Henry  viii,  about  A.  D.  1538.  He  says,  "  AH  Curates  must 
openly,  in  the  Church  teach  and  instruct  the  mydwiefes,  of  the  very  wordes  and 
fourme  of  Baptisme  ;  to  thentente  that  they  may  use  them  perfectly,  and  none 
other,  in  time  of  nede,  that  is  to  say)  that  ihey,  naming  the  child,  must  say  these 
words  :  John,  or  Thomas,  or  Agnes,— I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Fader, 
the  Sonne,  and  the  Holie  Gost :  and  that  saying  these  worded,  they  mast  cast 
water  upon  the  child.  For  which  purpose,  they  must  have  ready  at  hand  a  ves- 
sel of  clean©  water." — Burnet's  History  of  (lit  Reformation,  Colkction  of  Records^ 
No.  LVII. 


im 


ERRATA. 

There  ar^a  few  typographical  errors  in  the  precceding  pages,  which  materi-^ 
ally  alter  the  meaning  of  several  sentences.  The  reader  is  therefore  particular- 
ly requested  to  examine  the  following'  errata : — 

At  page  4,  line  10  from  the  bottom,  for  Hack,  read  Haak.  Line  6  from  tha 
bottom,  for  Dooper,  read  Doopen.  Line  2  from  the  bottom,  for  6,  2,  read  Heb. 
vi.  2.  At  page  8,  line  10  from  the  bottom,  for  Panrisftoi,  read  ffaiTTTsnoi  Page  9, 
line  11  from  the  top,  Tot Par^axelot^,  read  Par^ax^ciots.  Line  25  from  the  top,  for  in- 
flected, read  infected.  Page  11,  line  5  fromjl/ie  top,  for  body,  read  boy.  Line 
6  from  the  top,  for  cruna,  read  prura.  Llnef  from  the  top,  for  metruente?,  read 
metuentes.  Page  15,  line  3  from  the  top,  for  six  feet  high,  read  four  feet  high. 
Page  16,  line  6  from  the  bottom,  for  them,  read  then.  Page  17,  line  9  from  the 
top,  for  Katharsimos,  read  Katharismos.  Page  18,  line  8  from  the  top,  for  im- 
bued, read  imbibed.  Line  5  from  the  bottom,  for  taken,  read  take.  Page  30, 
line  14  from  the  top,  for  Ex.  xi,  30,  32,  read  Ex.  xl,  30,  32.  Page  40,  line  17 
fronn  the  top,  for  Acts  xix,  6,  7,  read  Acts  xix,  2,  6.  Line  18,  for  Math,  iii,  read 
Math,  iii,  11.  Page  41,  line  15  from  the  bottom,  for  Math,  iii,  7,  read  Math,  iii, 
7,11.  Page  56,  line  12  from  the  bottom,  for  caronical,  read  canonical.  Page 
58,  line  1,  for  course,  read  cause.  Page  66,  line  l8  from  the  bottom,  for  believ- 
ere,  read  believers.  Page  70,  line  9  from  the  top,  for  believ,  read  believing. — 
Page  76,  line  18  from  the  top,  for  pretenti,  read  petenti.  Page  77,  line  1  for 
Alexand&ius,  read  Alexandrinvs. 


NOTE. — The  author  would  inform  hia  readers,  that  quotation  marks  have 
been  in  several  instances  unintentionally  neglected  where  they  should 
have  been  inserted.  There  are  a  few  sentences  in  the  Sermons,  which  should 
have  been  marked  as  extracts  in  part  or  the  whole,  from  Tracy  on  Baptism,  in 
Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  Hibberd,  Dwigbt,  Woods,  E.  Hal),  on 
the  same  subject,  Porter's  Lectures,  Hodge  on  Romans,  Dick's  Theology,  and  a 
little  >frork  entitled  Scripture  Facts,  by  Cyrus  Comstock. 


